|
1 registered members (1 invisible),
692
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69001
04/28/06 08:16
04/28/06 08:16
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Conversely, if you display the obvious lack of intermediate fossilized evidence needed to show evolutionary transition to the average evolutionist he(she) becomes totally unraveled at the seams. At least that is my observation.
Which obvious lack? Of course we're finding mostly fossils of species that are stable over a long time period, like 10 million years or more. In comparision, mutations happen relatively fast (within maybe 100,000 years). So we can not expect to find many fossils of species in transition. Still, we've found enough transient fossils for unbroken reconstructions of the most important transitions, like dinosaur-to-bird, reptile-to-mammal, and of course, ape-to-human.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#69002
04/29/06 00:08
04/29/06 00:08
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
Marco_Grubert
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,236
San Diego, CA
|
Quote:
Talk.Origins seems to agree that micro evolution could be defined as "the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population." (Pardon me if I shouldn't assume that you guys would agree).
Microevolution = change of genetic information. If you look at it from the population level then that's a shift in gene frequencies (which seems a rather complicated way of saying that there are now more new creatures than before).
Quote:
If gene frequencies can shift based on environmental pressures, this doesn't mean animals can grow gills when they never had them before.
Your general definition neither states that this can or can not happen. You merely said that there are now more creatures with a specific gene than before. If this gene is responsible for growing gills then this means they can grow gills, if not then not.
Quote:
In other words, if we observe micro evolution, we still haven't observed anything that explains the creation of brand new, more complex creatures.
Since we're talking about gradualism passed on from one generation to the next you obviously won't get a "brand new" creature. Remember the eye examples posted above ? If the parent organism had a single light sensitive cell then the child will not suddenly have a complete eye with iris and muscle control. What is possibly however is that it will now have multiple light sensitive cells, or a protective layer above the cell.
Quote:
In fact, micro evolution just kind of sounds like a rewording of the idea of natural selection.
Remember: natural selection filters, mutation changes. If there was no change then there could be no frequency shift.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Marco_Grubert]
#69003
04/29/06 02:25
04/29/06 02:25
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Since we're talking about gradualism passed on from one generation to the next you obviously won't get a "brand new" creature. Remember the eye examples posted above ? If the parent organism had a single light sensitive cell then the child will not suddenly have a complete eye with iris and muscle control. What is possibly however is that it will now have multiple light sensitive cells, or a protective layer above the cell.
Marco, the example above is a typical oversimplification. You say that we wont get a "brand new" creature, but thats essentially what your asking for when you talk about the types of specialized cells used for light sensitivity. A small cell such as this compared to another type of functional cell is a lot like comparing one huge factory full of complex synchronized machinery with another. Their make up, operations, and dependencies are completely different. And they are extremely complex.One cannot mutate easily into another one any easier than as a frog can mutate into an elephant. And my example is not that ridiculous if you know anything about the differences between cells.
Show me how a cell can mutate into a completely different type of cell and we will finally have a logical discussion, but stating that cells can change into different types just because they are really small and they have lots of time to do so is no science.
If cells can mutate so frequently into different types of cells then why did it take procaryotes from 2500 million years to evolve into eucaryotes? It makes no sense.
jcl had mentioned a typical evolutionary period of 100,000 between species, I dont know where he is getting this, but irregardless, apparently the first asexual reproducers were well aware of the problems that sex would bring upon the world so they took a billion years or so to evolve copulation methods.  which makes no sense also because asexual reproduction is more efficient, quicker and provides a better system for species prolifigation. So natural selection is caught sleeping on the job again.
But enough about that for today, how about we talk about why a trex found a better evolutionary path to be that of the modern chicken...A tyrannasaurus rex would have been fine as the survivor of the fittest, he ate everything he saw and had no real competition, (except for king kong) but instead he evolved into a chicken?...I dont get it.
And how about the banana? What survival mechanism did the banana evolve? If natural selection weeds out the weakest species then I would think that either the banana would evolve some razor sharp spikes on its peeling or else it would become exstinct.
Ahhh Ive got it. Since most fruits propagate by being eaten and having their seeds digested onto the ground, perhaps fruit were really surviving by being eaten? That makes sense, now perhaps I know why the trex would evolve into a wimpy little chicken, because he thought that it would be best for his species to be eaten! 
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69004
04/29/06 05:15
04/29/06 05:15
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Microevolution = change of genetic information.
So you don't agree with Talk.Origins? Because your definition is more general, and a shift in gene frequencies isn't just any old change. I'll elaborate below.
Quote:
If you look at it from the population level then that's a shift in gene frequencies (which seems a rather complicated way of saying that there are now more new creatures than before).
It might seem that way, but really its just a complicated (?) way of saying that natural selection can shift the frequency of certain genes in different directions. Sometimes causing speciation (either because they can't produce offspring (which can be a non-evolutionary chromosomal change), or because they won't). However, it doesn't say anything about creative mutations. Creative mutations would be an outside force on micro evolution. And since we don't observe creative mutations, then its irrelevant to micro evolution, and therefor micro evolution is irrelevant to macro evolution. I'll conclude that point with some examples below.
Quote:
Your general definition neither states that this can or can not happen. You merely said that there are now more creatures with a specific gene than before.
Yeah, that's because micro evolution doesn't care about creative mutations. If a mutation can write gills, then micro evolution might act on it, but this doesn't happen, and micro evolution only works on existing genes. If an animal grows the beginning of gills, micro evolution won't care, since it won't provide an advantage until the circulation system rewrites itself and the gills somehow finish writing in that same time frame, and then it has to get rid of whatever other method of respiration it had, and then it has to learn how to use the gills effectively. Let's stick to reality just for a little while. We can get back to mutations later.
Quote:
If this gene is responsible for growing gills then this means they can grow gills, if not then not.
Again, this is outside of the definition of micro evolution. It doesn't ask that anything new be created, it just acts on existing genes. You can say that mutations can write gills, but this isn't observable, its just a scientific fairy tale. Apparently science hasn't gotten rid of all the superstitions.
Quote:
Remember: natural selection filters, mutation changes. If there was no change then there could be no frequency shift.
Do you know what gene frequencies are? It ties in with the idea of Alleles.
Let's take a creature that has two possible alleles A and a. There are a few combinations possible.
AA Aa aa
In a very small (for simplicity's sake) population it might look more like:
AA aa Aa Aa AA aa AA Aa AA aa Aa
Gene frequency is a measure of how often A or a appears. Not how often A or a is created. So let's say we have a population like this:
aa aa aa aa aa Aa AA
If we shift the gene frequency it might look more like this:
AA Aa AA Aa Aa Aa aa
Nothing new created, but we might have caused more dark moths to appear than light moths (we rebalanced the genes in the opposite direction). This is micro evolution, but it doesn't address where the dark moths appeared. They've been there all along, and in that case its just as scientific to say they were created as it is to say they evolved. That is, we don't have evidence of either conclusion.
The interesting thing is, evolutionists say that micro evolution will eventually lead to macro evolution. The problem is, the more extreme micro evolution gets, the less variety there is. For instance, if a light morph is recessive and so only appears when we get an 'aa' combination, then micro evolution might cause a population that looks like this.
AA AA AA AA Aa Aa
In this case, there are only dark moths. Micro evolution has actually managed to reduce genetic variance. Of course, this is a very basic example, but I'll give a real life example in a bit.
This leads to the large problem of evolution. Darwin was confused about micro evolution when he first observed it on the Golopagos, and evolutionists are apparently still confused by it today.
Actually, 'evolution' occurs in the creation model too. The problem is that most scientists have it going in the wrong direction (the ones who don't are labeled creationist and ignored as a crazy). Think about how much different dogs look than wolves. But they're degenerate. They are more prone to ailments (disease and physical problems), and overall they're MUCH less fit outside of the care of humans. They didn't evolve upward, and more importantly there's no new data involved in dogs. So how can they look so different, and have so much variety?
That's what happens when you shift gene frequency (micro evolution). Think about how much variety one species has to create all of these different kinds of dogs! Darwin was right when he said it looked like all of the finch species looked like they were derived from one singular animal. Here's where creationists and evolutionists part ways, though, unfortunately our path is backed by evidence, whereas the evolutionist path is paved in guesses and assumptions.
An evolutionist looks at all of the different varieties of finches and says, "Wow, they must have evolved from a more basic species, getting more complex along the way." Of course, the evidence lies in the assumption that this happened. We don't see this occur. Evolutionists just think that it had to have happened, otherwise we wouldn't see these different varieties.
A creationist looks at all the different varieties of finches and says, "Wow, they must have 'evolved' from a more generalized finch, losing variety (genetic potential) along the way." Unlike the evolutionist's assumption, ours is backed by factual observations. If a wolf can do it, why not the finches?
The gene frequency of larger and smaller beaks go different directions based on the needs of the bird in its environment. The gene frequency for a larger body shifts in one direction, while the gene frequency for smaller birds shifts in another. The gene frequency of longer beaks goes in one direction, shorter beaks in another. So on and so forth until we have the variety we see today, of course with each new species having less genetic potential than the original kind. Eventually we, or natural selection, can only selectively breed so much variety out of a kind of animal and if the pressure is too much the line simply ends. On the other hand we'll never see that finch turn into a pickle  . This is what you expect us to believe, when not only is there no evidence of it, but the evidence points to you having come to the wrong conclusion about the kind of change that actually takes place.
This all takes place within the realm of micro evolution, and fits the definition like a glove, yet nothing new was created. This is why creationists know that micro evolution will never lead to macro evolution, and why the evidence backs us up. You can add creative mutations to the mix, and micro evolution would work on a creative mutation. Of course, my pet Flying Spaghetti Monster says he disagrees with you. Science isn't about guessing.
Let's do a quick test, the object is to identify which one of these is not like the others.
A). Two species of birds split from one species based on whether or not they have larger or smaller beaks.
B). Another split or splits occur over body size.
C). Another split or splits occur over plumage.
D). Another split occurs where one of the birds has grown the beginnings of gills.
Darwin's ignorance led him to believe that this variety proved that animals had evolved. Of course, he was ignorant because he didn't know about genetics like we do today, and so he thought animals could just morph in any direction they felt like as long as pressure was applied. Since then, we've only ever observed pressure causing a change within the range of the original kind. Unfortunately Darwin's ignorance still carries on today, and has managed to confuse a lot of people about the truth of biology. Its time to let go of outdated doctrine founded in ignorance so we can finally move out of this dark age of science and stop wasting our time trying to prove a dead theory.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/29/06 05:43.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69005
04/29/06 05:55
04/29/06 05:55
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Since we're talking about gradualism passed on from one generation to the next you obviously won't get a "brand new" creature. Remember the eye examples posted above ? If the parent organism had a single light sensitive cell then the child will not suddenly have a complete eye with iris and muscle control. What is possibly however is that it will now have multiple light sensitive cells, or a protective layer above the cell.
You seem to be saying that cells aren't complex organisms (just because they're organized into a larger creature). I think the walking fungus would disagree with you.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/fungus.asp
Ignore that its a creationist website, if you're interested in biology at all even if you're an atheist, its a great read.
Cells, in fact, are where the foundation of all complexity lies. Not only in the genetic code they carry, but in their own structure. To say its as simple as growing photoreceptive cells is, as Nitro stated, a huge understatement. I won't keep repeating what he's said, but you seem to think that cells (because they are just basic building blocks) are themselves basic. Really, if you think about it, humans are just made out of billions of little organisms all working together to form our bodies. Which is why the idea of a consciousness is all the more ridiculous. Scientists claim they want to ignore the supernatural, but life itself is supernatural. To think that we happened on accident is beyond absurd.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/29/06 06:19.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69006
04/29/06 06:17
04/29/06 06:17
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Man, scientists really know how to trick themselves. I was looking into the peppered moths a little further. Even if there were no dark moths before the industrial revolution, they could have appeared over a short period of time in several instances due not to mutation, but to incomplete dominance. Since dark is dominant and light is recessive, incomplete dominance looks like this.
AA = dark
Aa = gray
aa = light
(In reality it would probably be more like AA and AB, but for simplicities sake it doesn't matter).
So even if there were no dark moths, they could have been spontaneously created by a mating between two gray moths quite often (but still be hard to find in the general population). This might explain their rarity. If they kept getting selected out, the gene for dark wouldn't have completely disappeared. So, when the pollution started pouring out, two grays mate, the AA happens to match up and since its dominant and selective pressures are gone, it takes over. So, even if there was no dark moth before the pollution, it didn't even mutate. But its called an 'abberant form.' Maybe scientists should learn a little bit more about their field of study.
This 'abberant form' excuse is just desperation on the part of scientists fearing the loss of their precious theory.
But it gets better, when you do a search for peppered moths online (or say in textbooks), this is still used as proof of evolution in action. That cracks me up. Its funny how much a world view can change your perception, and how that skewed perception can cause you to lie to others (even unintentionally). Seems evolutionists are doing what christians have been accused of for years. Whatever...
All right, I'm done for the night.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/29/06 06:17.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69007
04/29/06 06:48
04/29/06 06:48
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Unfortunately Darwin's ignorance still carries on today, and has managed to confuse a lot of people about the truth of biology
Its not confusion, the human mind automatically discards something which threatens its safe range. Because their bias is so strong they allow illogical, irrational ideas to replace the naked truth. Its a common psychological disorder called "denial" and when is in this state, they are said to be "in a state of denial". It happens whenever someones core beliefs are traumatized. I am not being facestious here either, denial is a psychological mechanism used by the average person who just doesnt want to face things, even seemlingly harmless things, like the existence of God. Here is an exerpt: DENIAL
Quote:
The interesting thing is, evolutionists say that micro evolution will eventually lead to macro evolution. The problem is, the more extreme micro evolution gets, the less variety there is
True, and you provided a good illustration of it with the dogs and the illustrations. Not only will micro evolution not go nearly as far in the direction that evolutionists need it to, but it tends to revert...
Ask any rose breeder if he can get a variety which blooms all year long..it is impossible, they can extend the bloom for a longer time through breeding methods, yet they reach a limit at around 6 months and left untended the species tend to revert back to their original state. It is all completely observable.
You dont need 100,000 years to observe the possibility of evolution(another one of jcl's statements), it is ridiculous to believe that; if you take 100,000 years for the "evolution" between the dinosaurs and the birds for example, (even though positive determination of aging among fossilized animals is virtually impossible) and then you pick an average age of say 10 years, this 100,000 year period is easily lab reproduceable among species with much lower life spans(like drosphilia melanogaster which I have personally done experiments with) yet you see no evolution. Believe me,its been tried and re-tried.
I have already referred to the work of the brilliant Goldschmidt and I have referred to the "hopeful monsters" and "punctuated equiblirium" just to give the evolutionists here some breathing room. If I had remembered correctly, Marco was the only evolutionists here who saw the idiocy of the Darwinian evolutionists. If you want to be a bulldog you can be a bulldog,after all bulldogs are cute-- but this kind of gradual micro evolution COULD NEVER LEAD TO NEW SPECIES, and the fossil record showing a)lack of intermediates and b) species explosions and c)mass extinctions confirms it.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69008
04/29/06 09:33
04/29/06 09:33
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
So even if there were no dark moths, they could have been spontaneously created by a mating between two gray moths quite often (but still be hard to find in the general population). This might explain their rarity. If they kept getting selected out, the gene for dark wouldn't have completely disappeared. So, when the pollution started pouring out, two grays mate, the AA happens to match up and since its dominant and selective pressures are gone, it takes over. So, even if there was no dark moth before the pollution, it didn't even mutate. But its called an 'abberant form.' Maybe scientists should learn a little bit more about their field of study.
This 'abberant form' excuse is just desperation on the part of scientists fearing the loss of their precious theory.
You presuppose that the peppered moth phenomenon is a gene shift and not a mutation (if we define mutation as a gene modification that didn't exist before). This presupposition is required because otherwise creationism would fall apart. Thus you're making the very mistake that you're accusing scientists of.
I think your moth gene shift explanation has an obvious logical flaw:
Gene shift model: (A = dark allele, a = light allele)
Before industrial revolution: aa aa aa aa Aa AA
After industrial revolution: AA AA AA Aa Aa Aa
Mutation model: (A = dark, a = light)
Before industrial revolution: aa aa aa aa aa aa
After industrial revolution: AA AA AA Aa Aa Aa
"A" is the dominant allele. Thus "Aa" is not just a little grey, it's really dark. If it existed in the moths before the industrial revolution, it would have lead to a dark moth in both the AA and the Aa cases. Those moths would have been eliminated by natural selection - they are more likely to be eaten. Therefore the "A" allele, even if it existed, would have been completely disappeared from the gene pool long ago.
Therefore, the mutation model is much more likely. And as you can see, even a micro mutation increases the variety of genes and doesn't reduce it. It creates a new allele "A" that didn't exist before.
Even if there's no 100% proof for the mutation model - what I posted is evidence, but not a proof - it's justified to mention this effect in school books as evidence for evolution.
However you don't need the peppered moth to prove mutations. Besides nature examples like the cave fish that's definitely a mutation, both harmful and helpful mutations have been observed a thousand times in the laboratory, and it would be absurd to deny them. Example:
Quote:
. Chao et al. (1977) grew wild type E. coli B in a chemostat. Once the vessel reached steady state they innoculated it with bacteriophage T7. The bacteria are sensitive to infection by T7. Needless to say, T7 grew like mad on the bacteria. After a short time, though, a mutation attributable to a single gene appeared in a cell surface receptor site which gave the bacteria complete resistance to T7. This bacterial stain was designated B1. Shortly after this a mutation occured in the virus which allowed it to infect strain B1 (strain T7.1). A second mutation occurred in B1 which made it resistant to this second virus strain as well as to the original virus strain (strain B2). All five of these critters happily coexisted in the same chemostat.
More on mutations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69009
04/29/06 18:14
04/29/06 18:14
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
However you don't need the peppered moth to prove mutations. Besides nature examples like the cave fish that's definitely a mutation, both harmful and helpful mutations have been observed a thousand times in the laboratory, and it would be absurd to deny them.
Right, it is absurd to deny them, and the example you gave is a perfect example indeed. What happens is that a virus is normally able to attach itself to a cell receptor, ribosome or other type of organelle. A mutation will misshape the ribosome so that the virus can no longer attach itself--hence the cells can coexist with the virus, they develop immunity.
However, beneficial mutation does not equal creative mutation. Your example would be better if it showed that a cell other than e.coli had evolved, but as it stands there were just small shifts in the folding patterns of proteins does not constitute the generation of a new type of functionality. Simply put: neutrality does not equal functionality.
There has never been anything new created via mutation, only mishapen monstrosities have been produced. It is only a good cooincidence that these monstrosities will not carry virii because of their twisted shapes. In the vast majority of cases, mutation is found to harm the organisms it resides in.
Quote:
- it's justified to mention this effect in school books as evidence for evolution.
I think both creationists and evolutionists need to think OUTSIDE the box on this one. In my opinion neither creation NOR evolution should be taught in high schools. The reason is that it is such a vast subject with such far reaching consequences. IE, a high school student is a little young to be faced with the big questions of God and origins in high school and shouldnt be given more than the most basic overview of creation vs. evolution. There are plenty of subjects that can be studied within biology, chemistry and physics that do not need to drag evolutionary or creationistic theories into the fray.
About the peppered moth: it was a farce anyway. Common logic dictates that the moths couldnt have gotten eaten during the day anyway, moths are nocturnal and noone really knows where they go during the day. Thus birds would not have eaten them because birds hunt in the day, thus natural selection wouldnt have occured. The camoflauge of dark dirty trees or lighter ones wouldnt have mattered at night time either.
The birds that were filmed eating these moths were eating moths which were placed on the trees by experimenters. They even had to place the moths on the hoods of cars to warm them out of their groggy states. For one documentary the moths had to be pinned to the trees..
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69010
04/29/06 19:11
04/29/06 19:11
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
About the peppered moth: it was a farce anyway. Common logic dictates that the moths couldnt have gotten eaten during the day anyway, moths are nocturnal and noone really knows where they go during the day. Thus birds would not have eaten them because birds hunt in the day, thus natural selection wouldnt have occured. The camoflauge of dark dirty trees or lighter ones wouldnt have mattered at night time either.
There are birds that eat them during the night too, and also it's far from impossible that they get eaten during the day too. I'm not sure what colors an owl would see for example, but I'm quite sure that the white color still makes up for a higher contrast during night, than a black color would, being still more easy to spot. Isn't the example still valid when it comes to natural selection? I do agree though that the example itself has it's flaws.
As for textbooks and their content, there's a lot more in them that's not true anyways. Getting rid of that would not be a problem, but what about all the assumptions we get thaught as being truths? Get rid of them and there won't be much left. Not even recorded history is unbiased ("one-sided view-effect"). I agree we should not be thaught things that simply aren't true, and sometimes notes are being left out that the things stated might not be true, but where does it end if you want to get rid of all those things. In the peppered moth case, blame the author and probably the time during which the book was written don't you think?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
