Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Stephen Jay Gould
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism, I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. The history of most fossils species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

Dr. Niles Eldredge
If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.

I just love posting this. Not saying that Gould or Eldredge believed that there was no evidence for evolution at all, it's clear from what they wrote there was a problem with gradualism. It is also clear that "Sudden appearance" and "Stasis" are what we creationists were predicting. How do you like my peer review?

--Dave

Yes I seemed to remember this from at least one other thread and iirc your misconceptions about what exactly is meant by "gradual" and "sudden" in geological time scales anyway were all adequately rebutted at the time.
Maybe we should expect another cut and paste outing in the not too distant future? lain:

 

[DFT_Dave]

'Sudden Appearance: in any local area... '

The local area part is important. Do you know why? The passage doesn't mean what you thought it did.

Because stasis (equilibrium) is punctuated by rapid change in a species, relatively speaking of course, in a smaller group that branches off into another area from the main group. But, in geologic time, the "new look" appears suddenly, as if having not evolved at all.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes I seemed to remember this from at least one other thread and iirc your misconceptions about what exactly is meant by "gradual" and "sudden" in geological time scales anyway were all adequately rebutted at the time.
Maybe we should expect another cut and paste outing in the not too distant future? lain:

Yes, it will appear suddenly and unchanged.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yes I seemed to remember this from at least one other thread and iirc your misconceptions about what exactly is meant by "gradual" and "sudden" in geological time scales anyway were all adequately rebutted at the time.
Maybe we should expect another cut and paste outing in the not too distant future? lain:

We can see why you dont consider yerself to BWIGHT.

They dug down through what they figgered were the right time frame of layers.

Why are you doubting yer heroes now?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Why on earth would the whole population of humanity have our have not sickle cells?

People with ancestry from non malaria prone regions are unlikely to carry the gene since it offerred no advantage for them. People in malaria prone areas have a significant chance of carrying the gene since bring a carrier is an advantage whenever malaria is around.

The gene will never become ubiquitous throughout the population because of its homozygous lethality (sickle cell anaemia). The main disadvantage of the gene is that if a carrier mates with another carrier then they have a one in four chance of a child with sickle cell anemia, so the more prevalent the mutation becomes the less of an advantageous it is to carry it. Assuming no change in environment the population will tend to a percentage of sickle cell genes at around the tipping point where the anti malaria benefits is equally balanced against the odds of mating with another carrier and having a sickle cell anemia child.


Now what are the odds you can't follow that train of thought...

What are the odds that this is relevant to human evolution?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So, four posts and counting since the above decleration and not an hint of any "falsifiable evidence for creationism."

When you're ready Dave.

See post #2877 "Sudden appearance" and "Stasis" are what we creationists were predicting. How do you like my peer review?

--Dave

 

[alwight]

We can see why you dont consider yerself to BWIGHT.

They dug down through what they figgered were the right time frame of layers.

Why are you doubting yer heroes now?

Wow I saw what you did there, you're really sharp, mind you don't cut yourself.
If I were you I'd go on a wabbit hunt and try to find a fully formed wabbit fossil in the Cambrian.

 

[Tyrathca]

What are the odds that this is relevant to human evolution?

--Dave

Given that the sickle cell gene is a human gene I'd say by definition we are talking about human evolution.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Wow I saw what you did there, you're really sharp, mind you don't cut yourself.
If I were you I'd go on a wabbit hunt and try to find a fully formed wabbit fossil in the Cambrian.

No thanks, I can wait for my dog to chase one back to me before I shoot.:BillyBob:

 

[alwight]

No thanks, I can wait for my dog to chase one back to me before I shoot.:BillyBob:

You won't falsify the ToE that way. :nono:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Wow I saw what you did there, you're really sharp, mind you don't cut yourself.
If I were you I'd go on a wabbit hunt and try to find a fully formed wabbit fossil in the Cambrian.

Hey do you get paid more to play stupid, or does it come natural?

 

[alwight]

Hey do you get paid more to play stupid, or does it come natural?

You'll have to think quicker than that, you don't get a second go at being witty.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Given that the sickle cell gene is a human gene I'd say by definition we are talking about human evolution.

Ok, then explain how this demonstrates the evolution of man from a common primitive ancestor to both apes and man.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You'll have to think quicker than that, you don't get a second go at being witty.

Its cool, I like fishin just as much as I do huntin.

Long as its live.

 

[alwight]

Ok, then explain how this demonstrates the evolution of man from a common primitive ancestor to both apes and man.

--Dave

ERVs do a much better job of that than sickle cell Dave, but no doubt you'd prefer to ignore them and look for things that perhaps don't.

 

[DFT_Dave]

ERVs do a much better job of that than sickle cell Dave, but no doubt you'd prefer to ignore them and look for things that perhaps don't.

I meant this for everyone. Try to answer this then we'll go to ERV's.

The Lederberg experiment
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by "stamping" the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.

Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. Their experimental set-up is summarized below:

1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the "original plate."

2. They are allowed to grow into several different colonies.

3. This layout of colonies is stamped from the original plate onto a new plate that contains the antibiotic penicillin.

4. Colonies X and Y on the stamped plate survive. They must carry a mutation for penicillin resistance.

5. The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, "did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin?"

The answer is no: When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live — even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before.

So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.

Now, the big question.

How did the penicillin-resistant bacteria get into the population?

Your move.

--Dave

 

[6days]

So, four posts and counting since the above decleration and not an hint of any "falsifiable evidence for creationism."

When you're ready Dave.

"Creationism" is a belief, same as evolutionism. Beliefs are not falsifiable. However the evidence better fits the Biblical creation model.
In the beginning, God created...

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I meant this for everyone. Try to answer this then we'll go to ERV's.

The Lederberg experiment
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed. In this experiment, they capitalized on the ease with which bacteria can be grown and maintained. Bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates. These colonies can be reproduced from an original plate to new plates by "stamping" the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.

Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. Their experimental set-up is summarized below:

1. Bacteria are spread out on a plate, called the "original plate."

2. They are allowed to grow into several different colonies.

3. This layout of colonies is stamped from the original plate onto a new plate that contains the antibiotic penicillin.

4. Colonies X and Y on the stamped plate survive. They must carry a mutation for penicillin resistance.

5. The Lederbergs set out to answer the question, "did the colonies on the new plate evolve antibiotic resistance because they were exposed to penicillin?"

The answer is no: When the original plate is washed with penicillin, the same colonies (those in position X and Y) live — even though these colonies on the original plate have never encountered penicillin before.

So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin. They did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic.

Now, the big question.

How did the penicillin-resistant bacteria get into the population?

Your move.

--Dave

The penicillin was in the same locale, it musta jumped over onto the plates.

Course them incompetent creation scientists mighta spilled some on the cloth, hunh?

opcorn:

 

[6days]

Given that the sickle cell gene is a human gene I'd say by definition we are talking about human evolution.

Nobody has claimed humans don't change... We do. For example human brains are shrinking from larger brains possessed by our ancestors.
Sickle cell mutation is simply a mutation that destroyed / altered pre-existing information. It is rare but occasionally a mutation can have a beneficial outcome, even though there has been a loss of information. What is far more common is deleterious mutations that accumulate in the human genome, causing additional genetic problems.

 

[6days]

I got it. It is just that I see ALL your posts as one big joke. :up:

Ad hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.
Urban dictionary