RSR: Spiders & Termites & Magnets

[Yorzhik]

And it is well explained if creationists would actually bother to read the literature, or even a textbook.

But creationists love to claim "evolutionists have no answer" for things that actually have copious amounts of "answers" in the form of published papers and books.

Besides your claim "I'm smarter than you so just believe me when I say evolution is true", what about evolution am I wrong about?

And the copious amounts of answers for evolution are mostly just-so stories. But when you get to the crux of the story, there is no answer.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yet another *Wrong* Science Friday. Figured out your squid ink issue yet, Bob? Made an on-air retraction this week?

My favorite here: "The guys start the show asking how, theoretically, vital organs could evolve, since by definition, they are vital."

Someone apparently never took comparative zoology. There's a nice progression in complexity (and presence) of quite a number of vital organs.

Here's a detailed discussion

It's really unfortunate that doctors don't learn about the origins of the organs they work on . . . .

Nice pictures. How many nucleotide differences is it between those hearts?

 

[Alate_One]

That's for sciencey things.

Yeah, like evolution . . . .

Except all your "steps" are still vital organs.

Except if you go back to the worm version, they can survive without a heart. And many organisms do not have hearts at all. If they are so vital, why can some organisms survive without one? And the simplest hearts are just pulsating blood vessels.

And none of them are linked to any of the others.

Sure they are the organisms that carry them are linked. . . . by DNA, by fossils and by observing the hearts during development. If there is a sequence of events that can turn what looks exactly like a worm heart into a human heart, with all the stages in between what makes it impossible for it to occur naturally?

I think you missed a few steps. :chuckle:

Like?

 

[alwight]

I at least am quite happy that it does in fact do that very well indeed based in honest real evidence, without having to force-fit any particular preconcluded doctrinal, supposedly inerrant alternatives.

That's a nice claim. What is the explanation?

Well no, its not in fact a claim, its actually in fact a fact, that I am personally happy that it is a fact. lain:
While you otoh are not happy with it simply because it doesn't fit happily into your literal version of your doctrine.
Your objections are therefore disingenuous in my view because of an overriding agenda of the Bible being preserved as inerrant at all costs regardless of apparent rationality.

Later Edit: It strikes me that even you might agree that evolution of the old Earth variety is a reasonably enough explanation in itself for the available evidence, even if you do think it is mistaken

Not at all. Evolution is entirely unreasonable according to the evidence.

Then we await its imminent falsification and your Nobel Prize is no doubt in the bag.

In that case I suggest that it is now time for creationists to falsify it instead of expecting to have every last detail fully explained for you.

It's your theory. As you explain it I'll show you how it doesn't work long before you fill in every last detail.

I can't take all the credit for it of course.

Can you show me how ERVs in DNA are not strong evidence of common descent?
Or why at the same time geology and astrophysics are not sources of evidence of an old Earth?
Or why adaption clearly demonstrable through artificial selection could not be a parallel of natural selection?
I promise not to steal your Nobel Prize btw.

 

[Stripe]

Except if you go back to the worm version, they can survive without a heart.

:rotfl: And cockroaches can survive without heads. Hardly any evidence that they evolved. So far you've got four pretty drawings and your say-so.

Got any evidence?

And many organisms do not have hearts at all.

Are we talking about things without hearts now?

If they are so vital, why can some organisms survive without one?

:doh:

And the simplest hearts are just pulsating blood vessels.

Still waiting for evidence.

Sure they are the organisms that carry them are linked. . . . by DNA

They all have DNA. :up:

by fossils

They all have fossils. :up:

:think: How many fossilised hearts do we have?

and by observing the hearts during development.

Greetings, Haekel! :e4e:

If there is a sequence of events that can turn what looks exactly like a worm heart into a human heart, with all the stages in between what makes it impossible for it to occur naturally?

:squint:

What?

Like?

Like all of them. Evolution needs to show how an organism without a heart could develop into one with one, not line up hearts according to size from a hundred different living things and claim that as evidence.

 

[Yorzhik]

Well no, its not in fact a claim, its actually in fact a fact

Yeah! A mighty sophist!

 

[voltaire]

Frayedknot. You claim that biologists know that complexity is what you get at the end of a evolutionary process. They do not know that. Wishful thinking by biologists does not equate into facts.

 

[voltaire]

Alwight suggested that it was now time for creationists to falsify evolution. You cannot falsify a series of millions of supposed steps that happened according to natural selection. Natural selection is true. Evolution within kinds is true. Tiny variations or microevolution is true but it is really only micro degradations of a perfectly functioning genome. They are all steps down....not up. The evolution within kinds we see in the fossil record did not happen by darwinian methods. What creationists can falsify is any one particular claim that there was a common ancestor between certain species. I believe i have read a falsification of the supposed common ancestor of chimps and humans.

 

[voltaire]

------Because they are vital to the organisms that have hearts. An organism with a vital organ cannot evolve into an organism with that organ. A monkey cannot have his heart evolve into something that isnt a heart. He cannot survive if his blood does not circulate, hence the name vital.

 

[Jukia]

Alwight suggested that it was now time for creationists to falsify evolution. You cannot falsify a series of millions of supposed steps that happened according to natural selection. Natural selection is true. Evolution within kinds is true. Tiny variations or microevolution is true but it is really only micro degradations of a perfectly functioning genome. They are all steps down....not up. The evolution within kinds we see in the fossil record did not happen by darwinian methods. What creationists can falsify is any one particular claim that there was a common ancestor between certain species. I believe i have read a falsification of the supposed common ancestor of chimps and humans.

Please provide a cite to the "falsification" of the chimp/human ancestor.

Also, what is it that causes the inability of evolution to act between kinds? And please define what a kind is first.
thanks

 

[voltaire]

Alwight. A lack of a pre cambrian rabbit does not mean evolution happened. Have you ever considered that God did not create a single animal that exists today. In all likelihood, God created a rodent creature that does not exist today nor in the fossil record. This first rodent likely did not start to thrive until the paleocene and then radiated into the rodent fossils of the eocene and miocene and pliocene and pleistocene. The rodent that came off the ark onto tge vaalbara continent in the late archean, never reached popvlations high enough for fossilization and it was only the rodent species that radiated during the oligocenn that reached populations large enough for fossilization. the precambrian rabbit is a false assumption about creationism.

 

[voltaire]

Jukia asks for the evidence of the inability of evolution to act between kinds. The non coding sequences of dna are the evidence. Many creatures have similar amounts of genes and share many of the same ones and yet they can be of completely different families. The major difference lies in the non coding sequences. If the gene difference between the organisms is not great, it is unlikely that gene mutations could be responsible for any possible evolution. That only leaves the non coding sequences as a possible way to evolve from one kind to another. continued next.

 

[voltaire]

Darwinian evolution claims that non coding genes are remnants from past evolution failures that mutated into non usable forms. There is no darwinian mechanism to evolve from one species to another using non coding sequences. If the coding genes of different familes have differences that are no larger than differences found between animals of the same family, how can mutated genes account for the huge difference in morphology between families? Creationist evolution actually uses the non coding sequences but thats for another time.

 

[Jukia]

Darwinian evolution claims that non coding genes are remnants from past evolution failures that mutated into non usable forms. There is no darwinian mechanism to evolve from one species to another using non coding sequences. If the coding genes of different familes have differences that are no larger than differences found between animals of the same family, how can mutated genes account for the huge difference in morphology between families? Creationist evolution actually uses the non coding sequences but thats for another time.

Let the time be now for the creationist evolution non coding method.
Please provide citations to the literature, not your take on it. Thanks

 

[alwight]

Yeah! A mighty sophist!

Is that really the only way you have of refuting what I say by quote mining me Yorzhik? Surely you will allow me to have a rational conclusion of what I personally consider a fact, which is after all what I said, even if in fact in the unlikely event that it isn't fact.

If the ToE isn't in fact a fact then falsifying it with Precambrian rabbit or its equivalent must be a very likely possibility.
However I don't think that is possible because it is in fact, a fact.
But if I'm nevertheless wrong then falsifying evidence must surely be out there somewhere.

 

[alwight]

Alwight. A lack of a pre cambrian rabbit does not mean evolution happened. Have you ever considered that God did not create a single animal that exists today. In all likelihood, God created a rodent creature that does not exist today nor in the fossil record. This first rodent likely did not start to thrive until the paleocene and then radiated into the rodent fossils of the eocene and miocene and pliocene and pleistocene. The rodent that came off the ark onto tge vaalbara continent in the late archean, never reached popvlations high enough for fossilization and it was only the rodent species that radiated during the oligocenn that reached populations large enough for fossilization. the precambrian rabbit is a false assumption about creationism.

Falsifying evidence is nevertheless very notable by its absence, a false theory would have at least some if not plenty I think.

Your rather silly contrived mega-rapid evolution and high-speed tectonic plates shift that would be required, defies all reason and rationality imo given only a few thousand years anyway, yet you seem forced to suppose it while at the same time pooh-poohing a much more natural and far more relaxed version, which seems strange. :think:

You will also have to suppose I think that selection could not have been natural due to the Biblical time restraints and would have to have been constantly and arificially or supernaturally micro-managed by God toward His specific goal. But I suggest that this goes completely against what real evidence seems to show and that there simply are no such goals.

Yet tectonic plates continue to move only slowly and creatures only need to adapt to the environment or to compete for resources, not to a fixed goal, while most have even become extinct!
A very strange and mysterious Godly plan indeed you seem to have going on here. :think:

 

[Alate_One]

Darwinian evolution claims that non coding genes are remnants from past evolution failures that mutated into non usable forms.

No. "Darwinian evolution" makes no such claim. Darwin had no clue about genetics, nor did the original creators of modern synthesis know much about non-coding DNA. However, modern molecular genetics is currently exploring (and has explored for a very long time) the regulatory functions of non-coding DNA. SOME non-coding DNA is certainly junk, what proportion is junk vs. regulatory depends on the species.

There is no darwinian mechanism to evolve from one species to another using non coding sequences.

Um, sure there is. You're simply not aware of the literature that discusses evolution that occurs because of non-coding, *regulatory* sequences. In fact, Darwin's famous finches have different beaks due to non-coding DNA. It appears that humans have actually *lost* regulatory sequences that most other species have. Kinda turns that whole "complexity" argument on its head mmm?

If the coding genes of different familes have differences that are no larger than differences found between animals of the same family, how can mutated genes account for the huge difference in morphology between families? Creationist evolution actually uses the non coding sequences but thats for another time.

Your entire posts are based on ignorance of actual scientific literature on molecular evolution and the function of gene regulation and regulatory regions. I'd strongly suggest you borrow an evolution textbook from a library (or even just a modern biology textbook, I like Life: the science of biology). Or you could watch "What Darwin Never Knew" in my sig.

Saying that creationists are the only ones interested in noncoding DNA is ridiculous, the YEC crowd didn't discover the functions of noncoding DNA, they're simply trying to use any perceived ignorance about any aspect of it to make the old nonsensical claim that if science doesn't know something, YEC must be correct. :dizzy:

 

[DavisBJ]

They are all steps down....not up.

Are they always steps down because something forbids steps up, or just that steps up never happen?

 

[alwight]

Are they always steps down because something forbids steps up, or just that steps up never happen?

A million steps-downs will sink without trace while only one step-up will raise the bar.

 

[Stripe]

A million steps-downs will sink without trace while only one step-up will raise the bar.

:rotfl: