PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution in Action

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is an example of speciation actually happening in the wild.  The Monarch Flycatcher, in the Solomon Islands, is splitting into two seperate populations due to a change in a single gene - one that changes the color of the birds plumage.  The birds have split into two seperate populations, one all black, and the other with chestnut colored belly.

A small change, but it shows how two seperate populations can arise, leading to further differentiation over time.

Two seperate bird populations splitting into two species
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:57 PM on July 30, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I read about those guys a while back.  It's cool stuff.  Of course, creationists would just say it's microevolution or whatever, sigh.  Still, it shows how even a single mutation can set the path towards speciation.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 7:48 PM on July 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 7:48 PM on July 30, 2009 :
I read about those guys a while back.  It's cool stuff.  Of course, creationists would just say it's microevolution or whatever, sigh.  Still, it shows how even a single mutation can set the path towards speciation.


Yes, I know they'll say that.  But we evos can enjoy the discoveries that come along, and say 'Ah!  Another piece of the puzzle in place.'  And appreciate that we can have a glimpse of how Nature really works.  

Awesome!

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:46 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another piece of the puzzle in place


What puzzle? There is no puzzle nor disagreement about minor change within say 'the flycatcher kind'. If the flycatcher starts turning into something that cannot be recognized as the same kind of bird, that would be different .This is the sort of deceptive false advertising that disgusts me about evolution and evolutionists who use it to push their religion. They know exactly what the disagreement is about but they use every opportunity at their disposal to push minor change on the gullible public as 'evolution' -'proof that our religion is true' knowing full well that what they are using to promote their cause has nothing whatsoever to do with the real issues and does nothing to support the evolution they want us to believe in.

Somewhere in their little hearts evos know that what they're doing is deceptive but no doubt they calm their conscience with the thought that molecules to man evolution just has to be true and if this is what they need to do to push the big picture then so be it.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:30 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:30 AM on July 31, 2009 :
Another piece of the puzzle in place


What puzzle? There is no puzzle nor disagreement about minor change within say 'the flycatcher kind'. If the flycatcher starts turning into something that cannot be recognized as the same kind of bird, that would be different .


LOL, turning into a different "kind" is exactly what we see happening here - this is an instance of incipient speciation.

BTW, the way creationists use "kind" is meaningless. Why not just use species like the rest of world?  I guess if you used standard terms with standard meanings then you'd be forced to admit evolution happens?


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 09:22 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

turning into a different "kind" is exactly what we see happening here - this is an instance of incipient speciation.


So what you're saying is that we can't see that it's the same kind anymore? Can't see the relation?
No, I think you know it's the same kind no matter how evolutionists like to play stupid when it suits the occasion. Show me something that never had feathers getting feathers; show me some incipient fins developing in the place of legs -you know what creationists mean by macro-evolution -show me SOMETHING!!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:39 AM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me SOMETHING!!

Why bother, you'll just ignore it or hand wave it, anything to protect your precious myths.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:17 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:39 AM on July 31, 2009 :
turning into a different "kind" is exactly what we see happening here - this is an instance of incipient speciation.


So what you're saying is that we can't see that it's the same kind anymore? Can't see the relation?
No, I think you know it's the same kind no matter how evolutionists like to play stupid when it suits the occasion. Show me something that never had feathers getting feathers; show me some incipient fins developing in the place of legs -you know what creationists mean by macro-evolution -show me SOMETHING!!


And this is why your arguments will never be scientific in nature, they'll always be vague opinions with no backed up evidence.

In science, things are defined in specific ways, sometimes these definitions change a little, but when we talk about a species, we generally have an idea of what makes a species. And when we talk of speciation, we know what it means in relation to different species.
We know, because there's definitions in all of science.

And then creationists come along, calling things kinds, and the same kind, and they just don't have a definition of what a kind really is.
Sure, they point and say "a bat is a kind" but that isn't really much of a definition more then pointing to a tree and saying "that is a tree"

You want us to take you seriously, you'll have to take this seriously yourself, you want to fight the evil evolution conspiracy, then you have to do science.
And science deals with defined attributes and definitions.
Use the scientific terminology, if you don't, you're talking about your own straw man idea of evolution, not actual evolution.

Evolution deals with species, and not creationist "kinds", if you want to make a point, you either have to:

1. Define kinds in a way that relates to how a species is defined.
or
2. Use the terminology and definitions as used in the theory of evolution itself.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 1:20 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, look at what is being presented here:

A single gene has changed that is essentially causing two seperate populations of birds.  Now it could be that they could successfully reproduce together, but the difference in appearance is causing a behavioral change so that they probably don't - my guess from reading the article.  That leaves the two populations (on two seperate islands) to go their own way.  Over time they will each incur different changes and truly become two seperate species, and could not successfully mate together even if they tried.

Just because it's not a spectacular change that you demand to see - such as a fish turning into a land dwelling tetrapod (which you will never see happen), you deny it as evidence for evolution.

But the fossil record shows that just such a transitional change does occur over time.  Tiktaalik is a good example.  Tiktaalik wasn't trying to become a land animal, it was just the process of Natural Selection driving a population to take advantage of new environmental opportunities, take advantage of new ecological niches.

It's just like continental drift that is occurring today via plate tectonics.  The drifting apart of North America/South America from Eurasia/Africa is occurring, though the movement is imperceptible in a human lifetime.  But we know its happening, and there is proof that it is happening (laser measurements show that it is).  Fossil records and comparison of geologic strata from different continients prove that the continents were once joined together.  Inda is plowing north into Eurasia, the cause of the Himilayans Mountains.  Its a slow process in terms of a human lifetime, but it happens through geological eras.

Evolution is the same way.  The fossil record shows dramatic change over large periods of time.  The small changes, such as we see in the example of the Monarch Flycatcher, is evidence that speciation does occur.  Evolution in action.  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:44 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:39 AM on July 31, 2009 :
turning into a different "kind" is exactly what we see happening here - this is an instance of incipient speciation.


So what you're saying is that we can't see that it's the same kind anymore? Can't see the relation?...-you know what creationists mean by macro-evolution -show me SOMETHING!!


It's pointless to talk about kinds.  It's a meaningless term.  I've had creationists tell me that the domain bacteria is a kind, but also tell me that chimps and humans are two separate kinds.  It makes no sense from a biological perspective.  

Instead, why not use standard terms like species, genera, family, etc?  At least we know what these terms mean.   Once we do that, then if you want to argue that this is not a case of incipient speciation we have a solid, common foundation.



(Edited by Mustrum 7/31/2009 at 2:09 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 2:07 PM on July 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If they can reproduce or could any time in the past then they are the same kind.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:27 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on August 4, 2009 :
If they can reproduce or could any time in the past then they are the same kind.


Thanks.

Kind = a population(s) that does not interbreed with other populations.  Right?

If so, how would we determine different kinds of bacteria?  In general, what about critters that reproduce asexually?

Also, how do you define macro-evolution?





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 08:18 AM on August 4, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me some incipient fins developing in the place of legs -you know what creationists mean by macro-evolution -show me SOMETHING!!


Sure:

http://www.aquatax.ca/TaxaKeyImages/StoneflyAdult.jpg

Stoneflies.  They look like wings, um?   But most stoneflies can't fly.   They use these structures to skim across the surface of water in wind.  

A very few can, under favorable circumstances, fly a short distance.   DNA evidence shows that this is not a degenerate condition; flightlessness is a basal trait for these very primitive insects.

So where did these almost-wings begin?   Turns out they are genetically derived from the gills of more primitive arthropods:


More evidence for this hypothesis comes from an analysis of non-flying arthropods, the crustaceans. The arthropod limb is primitively complex with multiple branches, shown below, while insects have stripped it down to a simpler jointed stalk. Many crustaceans have retained the tripartite branching structure of the limb, with an endopod (the foot), an exopod, and of most interest to us right now, a dorsal epipod.
gills as wings


The insect arrangement is illustrated at the top. They have wings and legs, diagrammed as simple discs (appropriately; they form from imaginal discs in the larva). We also have a lot of information about patterns of gene expression in these structures in insects. A gene called engrailed (en) is expressed in just the posterior half of each segment, and this gene has the same pattern in crustaceans. There is also a gene called Distal-less (Dll) that is expressed in all appendages; that one isn't quite as interesting for this study. The genes that are particularly provocative are pdm, which is expressed only in the insect wing and not in the leg, and apterous (ap), which is expressed only in the dorsal half of the wing and in a narrow ring on the leg. The question is whether a) crustaceans also have pdm and ap, and b) if they do, are they expressed in the epipod, which would suggest that wings and epipods are homologous structures.

And the answer is yes to both. Genes homologous to the Drosophila ap and pdm genes were identified in Artemia, and they are active in just the epipods of the crustacean limb. Pdm is similarly active in the epipods of the crayfish.


http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/flap_those_gills_and_fly/

(Edited by Yehren 8/7/2009 at 11:51 AM).

(Edited by Yehren 8/7/2009 at 11:52 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:50 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 10:50 AM on August 7, 2009 :
show me some incipient fins developing in the place of legs -you know what creationists mean by macro-evolution -show me SOMETHING!!


Sure:

http://www.aquatax.ca/TaxaKeyImages/StoneflyAdult.jpg

Stoneflies.  They look like wings, um?   ...

(Edited by Yehren 8/7/2009 at 11:52 AM).


Wow, great post!  And, of course, thanks to PZ as well.  :-)





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 1:13 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another piece of the puzzle in place
What puzzle? There is no puzzle
Do dogs and foxes belong to the same kind? Do hares and rabbits? Do all rodents? How many kinds of rodents are there?


Creationists look quite confounded before this non-puzzle.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:22 AM on October 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm afraid that is not macroevolution -that is imagination from one end to the other. Dream on.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:56 AM on October 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about horse evolution?


Quote from Apoapsis at 3:53 PM on October 11, 2009 :
Todd Wood: The horse series and creationism

Microevolution needs variation to work with. Variation is a property of populations, not of individuals or a pair of individuals. Where did the variation come from to allow the rapid diversification of horses in just a few centuries?

First, horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution.






(Edited by Apoapsis 10/17/2009 at 10:29 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:23 AM on October 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:27 AM on August 4, 2009 :
If they can reproduce or could any time in the past then they are the same kind.

Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.

Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.
***

The first step in fertilization is the binnding of the sperm to the zona pellucida.  

As the human sperm was able to bind to the zona in gibbon but not that of a new world monkey, two conclusions can be drawn - gibbons are more closely related to humans than are new world monkeys (a given) and human sperm can likley fertilize gibbon eggs and thus also higher ape ova.






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:52 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about horse evolution?


Horse evolution was made up by Othniel C Marsh in 1874

Problems with horse evolution:

1.Nowhere in the world are the fossils found in successive strata.
2.When they are found in the same continent (eg. John Day formation in Oregon); 3-toed and 1-toed are found in the same stratum.
3.In South America, 1-toed is found below 3-toed.
4.When other structures beside toes are considered, the results are not so impressive eg. ribs. Hydracotherium – 18 ribs, next creature – 19 ribs, jump down to 15 ribs and then finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.
5.The sequence requires arranging Old World and New World fossils up side by side and there is considerable dispute over how they should be arranged. The story depends to a large extent on who is telling it and when.
6.4-toed Hydracotherium (now called Eohippus) does not look the least bit like a horse. Skeletally it is said to be identical to the rabbit-like hydrax or daman still found in the African bush today.
7.Eohippus has been found in surface strata alongside 2 kinds of modern horses Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis.
8.Series shown in museums generally depicts an increase in size yet the range of horses living today from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England is as great as that found in the fossil record.

When questioned by Luther Sunderland:
Niles Eldredge called the horse series “lamentable”
Dr Raup said that it was far more complicated than early results had seemed to show. His museum omits Hyracotherium and starts with the 3-toed ‘intermediate’.
Dr Patterson agreed with Luther Sunderland that it was not really a series at all.

. It is a bit embarrassing to explain why evolution converted a 3-toed horse to a 1-toed horse in N. America while converting a 1-toed horse to a 3-toed horse in S. America.

The so-called family tree of horses has been composed from non-equivalent parts. That different horses existed in the past that are now extinct is a fact for all to see, but the notion that they all evolved from a common ancestor is fictional, part of the evolutionary myth.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:00 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:56 AM on October 17, 2009 :
I'm afraid that is not macroevolution -that is imagination from one end to the other. Dream on.


Right...

And the creation of a fully formed adult human male via blowing into dirt - that is TROOO science and REALITY, right?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:08 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:00 AM on October 18, 2009 :
The so-called family tree of horses has been composed from non-equivalent parts. That different horses existed in the past that are now extinct is a fact for all to see, but the notion that they all evolved from a common ancestor is fictional, part of the evolutionary myth.


According to Answers in Genesis that idea is also part of the creationary myth.

Answers in Genesis:  Horse Fossils and the Nature of Science

The results were not what I had expected. In fact, the results were the opposite of what I had expected. We looked at data concerning the shape of horse bones and teeth, but David’s analysis showed a pattern that matched almost exactly the order in which these horses were buried in the fossil record. Not only that, but we found evidence of only one created kind. To my surprise, our analysis seemed to support the view that horses have changed significantly in the past.

Now before you break out the tar and feathers, hear me out. We weren’t studying the origin of the first horses, because our analysis included only horses. The Bible plainly teaches the separate creation of animals “after their kinds,” and we continue to believe that. Our analysis supported a single created kind of horse, and a diversity of species that started and ended with horses. We concluded that the “evolution” of the horse was actually the diversification of horse species after the Flood.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:55 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:55 AM on October 18, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 11:00 AM on October 18, 2009 :
The so-called family tree of horses has been composed from non-equivalent parts. That different horses existed in the past that are now extinct is a fact for all to see, but the notion that they all evolved from a common ancestor is fictional, part of the evolutionary myth.


According to Answers in Genesis that idea is also part of the creationary myth.

Answers in Genesis:  Horse Fossils and the Nature of Science

The results were not what I had expected. In fact, the results were the opposite of what I had expected. We looked at data concerning the shape of horse bones and teeth, but David’s analysis showed a pattern that matched almost exactly the order in which these horses were buried in the fossil record. Not only that, but we found evidence of only one created kind. To my surprise, our analysis seemed to support the view that horses have changed significantly in the past.

Now before you break out the tar and feathers, hear me out. We weren’t studying the origin of the first horses, because our analysis included only horses. The Bible plainly teaches the separate creation of animals “after their kinds,” and we continue to believe that. Our analysis supported a single created kind of horse, and a diversity of species that started and ended with horses. We concluded that the “evolution” of the horse was actually the diversification of horse species after the Flood.




Cool - so in a mere 4,500 years, tops, we get 'regular' horses with 64 chromosomes, donkeys with 62, zebras with 44 or 46, Przewalski's horse with 66 - all viable large populations all stemming from one originnal horse-kind.

Yet we are told that humans and chimps cannot possibly be related for - bible aside - we have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:07 PM on October 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but David’s analysis showed a pattern that matched almost exactly the order in which these horses were buried in the fossil record.


Which order? The one in South America or the one in North America? OR the one where all the different continents are thrown together? (the non-equivalent parts?)

Yet we are told that humans and chimps cannot possibly be related for - bible aside - we have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48...


Well, can chimps and humans produce viable offspring? Are they the same kind or are they not? According to the Bible, creatures reproduce after their own kind. It never mentioned chromosome numbers and those chromosome numbers are never supportive of evolutionists contentions in any case, so we may just as well not go there.

And the creation of a fully formed adult human male via blowing into dirt - that is TROOO science and REALITY, right?


No, Derwood, you know jolly well that cytoplasm, proteins, DNA and all the other necessary components of a single-celled organism just happened to find one another in a primordial soup many billions of years after nothing blew up and created everything. There was no natural selection in those days because, of course, there was no reproduction yet ,but somehow it all happened and even if proteins, DNA and cell membranes do not form naturally nor spontaneously today, we have faith that it did in fact happen long ago and far away when nobody was around to view the proceedings. Now that is TROOOO science!  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:18 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:18 AM on October 19, 2009 :
Yet we are told that humans and chimps cannot possibly be related for - bible aside - we have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48...


Well, can chimps and humans produce viable offspring?

Probably.  There does nto seem to be any genetic/physiological reason that they could not.

Are they the same kind or are they not?


What is  akind?
According to the Bible, creatures reproduce after their own kind.

What is a kind?

Is kind like how you can call housecats and tigers 'cats', or is it somethign else?

It never mentioned chromosome numbers and those chromosome numbers are never supportive of evolutionists contentions in any case, so we may just as well not go there.

No, actually I wold enjoy going there.  Please tell me all about how "chromosome numbers are never supportive of evolutionists contentions in any case".  I would predict that your treatment of this issue would be akin to your treatment of 'information.'

And the creation of a fully formed adult human male via blowing into dirt - that is TROOO science and REALITY, right?


No, Derwood, you know jolly well that cytoplasm, proteins, DNA and all the other necessary components of a single-celled organism just happened to find one another in a primordial soup many billions of years after nothing blew up and created everything.

If you are going to set up a strawman argument, at least try not to make it so bloody apparent.

There was no natural selection in those days because, of course, there was no reproduction yet ,but somehow it all happened and even if proteins, DNA and cell membranes do not form naturally nor spontaneously today,


Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite

Zita Martinsa, b, , , Oliver Bottac, d, 1, Marilyn L. Fogele, Mark A. Sephtonb, Daniel P. Glavinc, Jonathan S. Watsonf, Jason P. Dworkinc, Alan W. Schwartzg and Pascale Ehrenfreunda, c



Abstract
Carbon-rich meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, contain many biologically relevant organic molecules and delivered prebiotic material to the young Earth. We present compound-specific carbon isotope data indicating that measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbon isotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of ä13C = + 44.5‰ and + 37.7‰, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code in modern biochemistry, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin.


***
US Patent 4921706 - Unilamellar lipid vesicles and method for their formation

TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention is in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry and in particular relates to the formation of unilamellar lipid vesicles.
[...]
The subject of this invention is unilamellar lipid vesicles which are spontaneously formed upon the mixing of aqueous suspensions of short-chain phospholipids (i.e., having fatty acid chain lengths of fewer than 9 carbons) with aqueous suspensions of long-chain phospholipids (i.e., having fatty acid chain lengths of at least 12 carbon atoms). The vesicles are easily formed, stable, non-leaky (i.e., do not release their contents) and cover a wide size range.


we have faith that it did in fact happen long ago and far away when nobody was around to view the proceedings. Now that is TROOOO science!  



Who saw Jehovah of the foreskins create the universe again?

Cool - so in a mere 4,500 years, tops, we get 'regular' horses with 64 chromosomes, donkeys with 62, zebras with 44 or 46, Przewalski's horse with 66 - all viable large populations all stemming from one originnal horse-kind.

Yet we are told that humans and chimps cannot possibly be related for - bible aside - we have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:23 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 11:23 AM on October 19, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 10:18 AM on October 19, 2009 :
Yet we are told that humans and chimps cannot possibly be related for - bible aside - we have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48...

Well, can chimps and humans produce viable offspring?

Probably.  There does [not] seem to be any genetic/physiological reason that they could not.


From what I know modern humans and chimps can't interbred. There have been several attempts in the past to create human-chimp hybrids, but none of them succeeded. Although my OCD friend will tell you one experiment did do it, but they killed the child and all destroyed all the evidence.

That aside I know there is genetic evidence that shows that after humans and chimps split, we interbred for possibly 1.2 million years. A new Nature article came out late August this year about it, but I don't have an account so I can't say if this hypothesis has been supported or debunked recently.

Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite


This is amazing, do you know if the nitrogen bases were free floating or organized together to create some sort of structure?

This invention is in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry and in particular relates to the formation of unilamellar lipid vesicles...


Again this is cool stuff. Sorry for all the questions but is the unilamellar lipid vesicles the same thing as a micelle? They sound very similar to each other.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:28 PM on October 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 12:28 PM on October 19, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 11:23 AM on October 19, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 10:18 AM on October 19, 2009 :
Yet we are told that humans and chimps cannot possibly be related for - bible aside - we have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48...

Well, can chimps and humans produce viable offspring?

Probably.  There does [not] seem to be any genetic/physiological reason that they could not.


From what I know modern humans and chimps can't interbred. There have been several attempts in the past to create human-chimp hybrids, but none of them succeeded.


I am aware only of 3 half-assed attempts by a Russian in the 1950s.  One of the female chimps died of unrelated illness, the other two did not conceive.  From what I have read, the techniques were crude and only single trials were run.
I would hesitate to declare that humans cannot interbreed if we have as our sample size three acts of attempted insemination that did not work out.  


That aside I know there is genetic evidence that shows that after humans and chimps split, we interbred for possibly 1.2 million years. A new Nature article came out late August this year about it, but I don't have an account so I can't say if this hypothesis has been supported or debunked recently.

Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite


This is amazing, do you know if the nitrogen bases were free floating or organized together to create some sort of structure?


I have not read the article in some time, if I remember correctly, they were adsorbed onto/into the mineral structure of the meteorite.  The precursors for biochemicals are fairly abundant in the universe, and they have been formed in a multitude of experimental conditions.  Those found on the meteorite show that they can form in a vaccuum, at near absolute zero temps, and likely in very low concentrations...



This invention is in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry and in particular relates to the formation of unilamellar lipid vesicles...


Again this is cool stuff. Sorry for all the questions but is the unilamellar lipid vesicles the same thing as a micelle? They sound very similar to each other.

Yes - a micelle is unilamellar.  I have read accounts of lipid bylayers forming spontaneously as well, but ina quick google earlier I did not come across those I had remembered.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:45 PM on October 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:30 AM on July 31, 2009 :
Another piece of the puzzle in place
What puzzle? There is no puzzle
Oh yeah?
From here:
Creation and the Kansas Schools
Just what are the limits of the “kinds” created by God in Genesis 1? Many modern “species” are known to interbreed (such
as camels and llamas), leading to the
speculation that they are adaptations
stemming from the same created kind.
A new term was coined in the 1960s by Dr. Frank Marsh to encourage research on this subject. Placing the Hebrew word for “create” (bara) and “kind” (min) together, he proposed the “baramin” as the basic created unit, within which much variety is possible, and within which hybridization (in principle) can occur. But now, so many years after creation and the Flood, much uncertainty exists. To address this issue, 24 invited scientists and creation specialists met at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, August 5–7, 1999, for a conference and teaching workshop on baraminology. Dr. Terry Spohn of the Department of Biology and Chemistry hosted the Baraminology Study Group (BSG), claiming “As Christians and scientists it is important to develop an active network to discuss, research, and plan for the next century” to solve the remaining pieces to this puzzle
Bwahahaha!

nor disagreement about minor change within say 'the flycatcher kind'.
Say? Say??? Do you know this baraministic kind or not? How? Who told you what its limits are?
If the flycatcher starts turning into something that cannot be recognized as the same kind of bird,
How many kinds are there? How are they determined?
that would be different.
What changes would convince you? If we put an artificial selective pressure to cause the changes that would convince you, would it count, or would it count as evidence for intelligent design (even if we just use selective forces, just like nature does)?

How many canine kinds are there?

Besides, whenever you people say 'no puzzle' i'm bound to remind you of this:

Here are the available options:
1) To reckon that there is a puzzle.
2) To reckon that they're mentally challenged.
3) Both.

You don't get to dodge both, the puzzle AND the mental challenge.

Hint: choose 1! Makes you look better!

___
This is the sort of deceptive false advertising that disgusts me about evolution and evolutionists who use it to push their religion.
Do you know one of the things we would expect from a religion that happens to be true? That people find it separately. Darwin and Wallace did.

On the other hand, you don't get any kind of Christian infection without an exposure.

They know exactly what the disagreement is about
Now that's not true. If we know it's about 'information', we don't know what 'information' is about, so that won't do. If it's about 'gradualism', we're not sure of what you mean, so that won't do either.

I mean, if speciation doesn't count as macroevolution, we don't know what 'macroevolution' means. We're not dumb. There's no evidence that you can understand anything we don't. And yet we don't know what you mean. It's reasonable to conclude that you don't either.

If this rate of change (in these birds) doesn't count as evidence for macroevolution OR gradualism... What do you want?

You ask for a higher rate of change than the theory predicts as evidence for that theory. That's nonsense.

On the other hand, a very high general rate of change is what's necessary for the ark myth to be true.
but they use every opportunity at their disposal to push minor change on the gullible public as 'evolution'
Chihuahuas and Great Danes. Is that big enough? What would be big enough for you? That they grow wings in three generations? That would count as evidence AGAINST the ToE, not in favor.
'proof that our religion is true' knowing full well that what they are using to promote their cause has nothing whatsoever to do with the real issues
The 'issues' that bug creationists are not 'the issues'. Not in the scientific field. Only in your minds. 'Information' for instance. That's not an issue. It's a bug in your brains.
and does nothing to support the evolution they want us to believe in.
The fact that things happen exactly according to the theory doesn't support the theory? Then what does?
Somewhere in their little hearts evos know that what they're doing is deceptive
Like when you use convergent evolution as an example of homology, and still claim that you understand what you're talking about? That kind of deception?
but no doubt they calm their conscience with the thought that molecules to man evolution just has to be true
That you don't understand Evolution is patent. No need to parade it.
and if this is what they need to do to push the big picture then so be it.
Let me explain one more time: the ToE doesn't deal with whatever came before life.
Push it where? Among scientists or religious folks?

So what you're saying is that we can't see that it's the same kind anymore? Can't see the relation?
Of course we can. Whatever you can see, we can see.
We can see further. We can see that all life belongs to the same kind. It's you who can't.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:12 PM on October 25, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a cool looking bird! Is its beak blue aswell, or just the way it looks on the photo?
So we are seeing Cladogenesis; The splitting of one species into two Clades by reproductive isolatation.

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on August 4, 2009 :
If they can reproduce or could any time in the past then they are the same kind.

So if they continue to diverge and then can't reproduce in the future, then they aren't the same 'kind'/species hence it would be observed speciation. Which would mean evolution.

Definition of Speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

(Edited by Galileo 11/4/2009 at 07:19 AM).


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 06:16 AM on November 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Definition of Speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.


Each of which possesses less allelic variation than either of the parent species.

So if they continue to diverge and then can't reproduce in the future, then they aren't the same 'kind'/species hence it would be observed speciation. Which would mean evolution.


No it would mean that some mutational barrier has made it impossible to breed leaving the new species (as with genetic drift) with less future variety possible and thus less chance of future adaptation and therefore moving closer to extinction.
Speciation is by no means a good thing for the organism in terms of future survival, nor is in going in the correct direction for hypothetical 'evolution.'



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:06 AM on November 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:06 AM on November 30, 2009 :
Definition of Speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.


Each of which possesses less allelic variation than either of the parent species.

So if they continue to diverge and then can't reproduce in the future, then they aren't the same 'kind'/species hence it would be observed speciation. Which would mean evolution.


No it would mean that some mutational barrier has made it impossible to breed leaving the new species (as with genetic drift) with less future variety possible and thus less chance of future adaptation and therefore moving closer to extinction.
Speciation is by no means a good thing for the organism in terms of future survival, nor is in going in the correct direction for hypothetical 'evolution.'



Lester, your comments above show you have no understanding of evolution at all.  Speciation can occur in several ways, in each case the result is an INCREASE in genetic variation.

What you're forgetting is that evolution happens to populations, not to individual organisms.  Mutations happen to the individual organisms.  Which of these mutations are  passed on is dependent upon environmental factors and, of course, any advantage the mutation bestows upon the individual's success in leaving offspring.

Think about it for a moment - how does speciation occur?  One way is that two populations of a species get geographically isolated from one another.  We see a clear example of this happening on oceanic islands, where the species on the islands differ from their mainland ancestors.  In these instances the total number of alleles has not diminished.  In fact, genetic variation has increased.  

Another example of clear increase in genetic variation occurs in polyploidy, which is common in plants, and results in an increase in the total number of chromosomes - a set from each parent.

These two examples of speciation clearly refute your notion that genetic variation cannot increase, and must decrease.

In other words, you are a very quick to make  assertions, but they are worthless without any evidence to back them up.  They become empty assertions.  And that is what we repeatedly tell you, but you don't seem to understand it.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:04 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:04 PM on November 30, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 09:06 AM on November 30, 2009 :
Definition of Speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.


Each of which possesses less allelic variation than either of the parent species.

So if they continue to diverge and then can't reproduce in the future, then they aren't the same 'kind'/species hence it would be observed speciation. Which would mean evolution.


No it would mean that some mutational barrier has made it impossible to breed leaving the new species (as with genetic drift) with less future variety possible and thus less chance of future adaptation and therefore moving closer to extinction.
Speciation is by no means a good thing for the organism in terms of future survival, nor is in going in the correct direction for hypothetical 'evolution.'



Lester, your comments above show you have no understanding of evolution at all.  Speciation can occur in several ways, in each case the result is an INCREASE in genetic variation.

What you're forgetting is that evolution happens to populations, not to individual organisms.  Mutations happen to the individual organisms.  Which of these mutations are  passed on is dependent upon environmental factors and, of course, any advantage the mutation bestows upon the individual's success in leaving offspring.

Think about it for a moment - how does speciation occur?  One way is that two populations of a species get geographically isolated from one another.  We see a clear example of this happening on oceanic islands, where the species on the islands differ from their mainland ancestors.  In these instances the total number of alleles has not diminished.  In fact, genetic variation has increased.  

Another example of clear increase in genetic variation occurs in polyploidy, which is common in plants, and results in an increase in the total number of chromosomes - a set from each parent.

These two examples of speciation clearly refute your notion that genetic variation cannot increase, and must decrease.

In other words, you are a very quick to make  assertions, but they are worthless without any evidence to back them up.  They become empty assertions.  And that is what we repeatedly tell you, but you don't seem to understand it.  






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:56 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, Lester... Enough time passed, right? You can make a fresh start. Right?
Quote from Lester10 at 11:30 AM on July 31, 2009 :
Another piece of the puzzle in place
What puzzle? There is no puzzle
Oh yeah?
From here:

Creation and the Kansas Schools
Just what are the limits of the “kinds” created by God in Genesis 1? Many modern “species” are known to interbreed (such
as camels and llamas), leading to the
speculation that they are adaptations
stemming from the same created kind.
A new term was coined in the 1960s by Dr. Frank Marsh to encourage research on this subject. Placing the Hebrew word for “create” (bara) and “kind” (min) together, he proposed the “baramin” as the basic created unit, within which much variety is possible, and within which hybridization (in principle) can occur. But now, so many years after creation and the Flood, much uncertainty exists. To address this issue, 24 invited scientists and creation specialists met at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, August 5–7, 1999, for a conference and teaching workshop on baraminology. Dr. Terry Spohn of the Department of Biology and Chemistry hosted the Baraminology Study Group (BSG), claiming “As Christians and scientists it is important to develop an active network to discuss, research, and plan for the next century” to solve the remaining pieces to this puzzle
What will you say about it?

1) My fellow creationists were wrong.
2) I was wrong.
3) I don't know.
4) Hush, i'll wait enough time to make a fresh start and hope nobody will notice.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:39 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way: You're dishonest, Lester. ¬_¬


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:57 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, your comments above show you have no understanding of evolution at all.  


Oh no really? None at all? Are you sure!?

Speciation can occur in several ways, in each case the result is an INCREASE in genetic variation.


Well, I don’t agree but send your examples along anyhow –I’ll be happy to look into it.

What you're forgetting is that evolution happens to populations, not to individual organisms.  


No, I didn’t forget but that won’t help.

Mutations happen to the individual organisms.  Which of these mutations are  passed on is dependent upon environmental factors and, of course, any advantage the mutation bestows upon the individual's success in leaving offspring.


Well there’s the problem you see. Is something gained or is something lost when mutation occurs? Let’s see some examples of gain and decide…

Think about it for a moment - how does speciation occur?  One way is that two populations of a species get geographically isolated from one another.  We see a clear example of this happening on oceanic islands, where the species on the islands differ from their mainland ancestors.


Yes.

In these instances the total number of alleles has not diminished.  In fact, genetic variation has increased.


What?! Sorry, I can’t agree. This sounds very strange to me.

Another example of clear increase in genetic variation occurs in polyploidy


No new information. Just repeated information. CAT goes to CATCAT –no new information.

These two examples of speciation clearly refute your notion that genetic variation cannot increase, and must decrease.


Does your genetic information increase if you move to another country?

In other words, you are a very quick to make  assertions, but they are worthless without any evidence to back them up.  They become empty assertions.  And that is what we repeatedly tell you, but you don't seem to understand it.


Maybe this is not just my problem.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:26 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just what are the limits of the “kinds” created by God in Genesis 1? Many modern “species” are known to interbreed (such
as camels and llamas), leading to the
speculation that they are adaptations
stemming from the same created kind.
A new term was coined in the 1960s by Dr. Frank Marsh to encourage research on this subject. Placing the Hebrew word for “create” (bara) and “kind” (min) together, he proposed the “baramin” as the basic created unit, within which much variety is possible, and within which hybridization (in principle) can occur. But now, so many years after creation and the Flood, much uncertainty exists. To address this issue, 24 invited scientists and creation specialists met at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, August 5–7, 1999, for a conference and teaching workshop on baraminology. Dr. Terry Spohn of the Department of Biology and Chemistry hosted the Baraminology Study Group (BSG), claiming “As Christians and scientists it is important to develop an active network to discuss, research, and plan for the next century” to solve the remaining pieces to this puzzle
What will you say about it?

1) My fellow creationists were wrong.
2) I was wrong.
3) I don't know.
4) Hush, i'll wait enough time to make a fresh start and hope nobody will notice.




1. What were they wrong about?
2. When was I wrong?
3. Yes, I don’t know what your problem is.
4. No hush, just tell me what your problem is and we’ll take it from there.

 







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:12 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



No new information. Just repeated information. CAT goes to CATCAT –no new information.
So i was right when i said you could always say it was the old GCAT, so you'd never call it "new".

Actually your unit consists of 3 letters (nucleotides). Let me do the math...

Mmm... Four nucleotides, so base 4... Combinations of 3 letters/nucleotides...
1 letter = 4 possibilities
2 = 16
3 = 64

There are just 64 possible combinations, Lester. I bet we can find them all in most DNAs.

So whatever appears you will call "old".

Not a smart thing to dodo.

Edit:
For future references, Lester, let me show you the formula to get the number of possibilities for any amount of "letters":
Being "X" the number we're looking for, 4 the number of available "letters" (GCAT) and "n" the amount of letters, the formula is easy:
X = 4n

Perhaps you can now see how ridiculous your "cat - catcat" statement was. There could be no new information ever. Not even if Yahweh came from Heaven and tried to pull the trick. Everything would be old "information".

Now you can calculate exactly how ridiculous your statement would be before even making it! ^_^

Not only that! The thing is that any mutation, any random process, well any frikkin thing, would produce "old information" very easily. So no intelligence would be required to do that. So, chances are, no intelligence was EVER involved.


(Edited by wisp 12/1/2009 at 11:02 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:53 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creation and the Kansas Schools
Just what are the limits of the “kinds” created by God in Genesis 1? Many modern “species” are known to interbreed (such as camels and llamas), leading to the speculation that they are adaptations
stemming from the same created kind.
Did they say "speculation"???

Lester, you hate speculation!!

Show us your fierce objective criticism towards your fellow creationist. Show us the honesty you profess.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:19 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:26 AM on December 1, 2009 :
What you're forgetting is that evolution happens to populations, not to individual organisms.  


No, I didn’t forget but that won’t help.


It is probably more informative to look at 'information' in terms of a population's gene pool.  Say we have 1000 individuals in a population.  There are 2 alleles at high frequency for gene x, we'll call them genexw and gene xw1, and maybe 20 or so at much lower frequencies.  Organism 121 receives a new mutation in its gene xw1, making it allele gene xw1a.  The population now has a new allele in its gene pool.  
New informaiton has been added.

Mutations happen to the individual organisms.  Which of these mutations are  passed on is dependent upon environmental factors and, of course, any advantage the mutation bestows upon the individual's success in leaving offspring.


Well there’s the problem you see. Is something gained or is something lost when mutation occurs? Let’s see some examples of gain and decide…


It is that whole definition sticky=wicket again.

Creationist Lee Spetner claimed originally that any mutation that altrers an enzyme's specificity is a 'loss of information', even if the enzyme could now bind 2 substrates instead of one, or bind a different substrate which was more helpful to the organism.  
Why is that a loss if it helps the organism?  How is an enzyme doubling its capacity a loss of information?

It is all semantical games.

Think about it for a moment - how does speciation occur?  One way is that two populations of a species get geographically isolated from one another.  We see a clear example of this happening on oceanic islands, where the species on the islands differ from their mainland ancestors.


Yes.

In these instances the total number of alleles has not diminished.  In fact, genetic variation has increased.


What?! Sorry, I can’t agree. This sounds very strange to me.


Perhaps not initially, however, now we have two divergent populations, each able to accumulate their own unique alleles.  


Another example of clear increase in genetic variation occurs in polyploidy


No new information. Just repeated information. CAT goes to CATCAT –no new information.


If this is so, then the no new informaiton argument has some problems, for duplication events are clearly associated with morphological patterning changes and the like:

Consequences of Hox gene duplication in the vertebrates: an investigation of the zebrafish Hox paralogue group 1 genes


I wonder how your preferred 'experts' will dismiss this.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:22 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.