RSR: Spiders & Termites & Magnets

[Alate_One]

Alate did not answer this, but maybe you can. How many nucleotide differences are there between all those hearts in those diagrams?

It wasn't worth answering since, you and I both know that science does not currently know every single gene involved in making hearts and what are the differences between them in every organism. Which I know from experience is what you would demand. The old, we must know EVERYTHING or we actually know nothing refrain you keep using here. However, quite a few genes are well studied, but the picture is by no means complete. Here's an essay covering at least one aspect

 

[Stripe]

It’s just that if you never took an unbiased look at the proposed evidence for evolution, then you are singularly hypocritical in critiquing that evidence.

I see.

So you're a bigot then?

Note to myself- Stripe rails against ideas that he admits he has not impartially considered.

Liar.

You’re the one that mentioned a sequence of bones. If you have no rationale for the way you sequenced them, then they are probably meaningless as displayed.

Okay. :idunno:

In contrast, Alate’s figures clearly illustrate that hearts can exist in a range of forms – from very simple to multi-chambered ones.

And it's no evidence for evolution, unless you've already assumed evolution to be true.

Evolution posits the more advanced forms of life we see came from earlier and simpler forms. Those earlier and simpler forms would have had simpler hearts.

And yet we have all those hearts here today. :idunno:

Seems to me if you just arranged the donors according to body mass you'd get a similar sort of correlation to complexity.

Nature shows that simpler hearts do exist, and that there are multiple small changes leading from the simple forms to the complex ones.

:squint:

There were four pictures in Alate's post.

Evolution is based on having a pathway from one form to another in small steps. Alate showed that criteria is seen in living organisms.

I think the "steps" between the hearts we have been shown are "giant leaps".

There is nothing wrong with assuming the validity of an idea when you are looking at evidence.

Not if you're trying to honestly understand a challenge to that idea.

Forensics is built on that approach. When a crime scene investigation finds a 45 caliber bullet casing, they don’t start by playing dumb and saying “Anyone in the world could have fired this shell.” They propose scenarios – such as “Maybe the husband did it.” Then they look to see if his DNA is there, and if he owned a 45, if he was in the vicinity of the crime, etc. If they find he was overseas they reject that scenario and they move on to the next proposed scenario – It was a jealous ex-boyfriend.

Or they could work on both at once. :idunno:

No one said (other than you) that one descended from the other.

I know. You need to provide evidence for evolution. Not simply assume it happened and expect me to play along.

Those figures show that hearts in fact exist in a continuous range of complexities, as would be required for evolution to proceed. If animals only had no hearts, or else fully developed ones like we have, then the absence of “simple” hearts would be a question that evolution would be faced with.

It's lucky you have such a malleable theory then. :up:

Please keep your baby-talk response for the playpen. Talk adult here.

Excuse me, stupid. It's been you that has been trying to talk baby! How about you go back and read what I actually said and adjust your response. :up:

The annelid "heart"

Which of these is annelid?

science does not currently know every single gene involved in making hearts and what are the differences between them in every organism.

Been trying to tell you this for ages. :chuckle:

But, as you say, we are well aware of our ignorance. But as you know, it is not really important that we get an exact number. So take your best guess. How many nucleotide differences are there between all those hearts in your diagram?

 

[DavisBJ]

And it's no evidence for evolution, unless you've already assumed evolution to be true.

Instead of saying “Evolution must be true”, how about just asking if such a sequence is what you would expect if evolution were a fact?

And yet we have all those hearts here today. :idunno:

I am of English descent, and yet there are still people living in England. Duh.

Seems to me if you just arranged the donors according to body mass you'd get a similar sort of correlation to complexity.

So? That says nothing about whether or not hearts would be expected to show increasing complexity.

There were four pictures in Alate's post.

Arranged to show what?

I think the "steps" between the hearts we have been shown are "giant leaps".

Show me specifically what in the pictures you consider to be giant leaps.

Or they could work on both at once. :idunno:

Fine, but the point still stands. The investigator asks what would be expected if some particular person was involved, and then looks for confirming or disproving evidence. Like if hearts exist in increasing stages of complexity.

 

[Jukia]

Seems to me if you just arranged the donors according to body mass you'd get a similar sort of correlation to complexity.

Gee, I tried that, compared a 100 pound tarpon to a mouse. Didn't work did it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian demonstrates a heart that is optional for an organism:
The annelid "heart"

Which of these is annelid?

All of those are much more evolved. You're arguing that there is no way men could design a supersonic fighter, because that is far beyond the technology of stone age hunters.

But the even primitive vertebrate heart has antecedents in the ur-chordates and even before, in more primitive deuterostomes. Would you like me to show you that, too?

 

[Stripe]

Instead of saying “Evolution must be true”, how about just asking if such a sequence is what you would expect if evolution were a fact?

The sequence has nothing to do with evolution.

I am of English descent, and yet there are still people living in England. Duh.

Are you more complex than them?

So? That says nothing about whether or not hearts would be expected to show increasing complexity.

It shows that there might be any number of reasons why the complexity increases.

Show me specifically what in the pictures you consider to be giant leaps.

Answer Y's question. :up:

I compared a 100 pound tarpon to a mouse.

At least you were thorough. :chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

I generally find your responses more specific than those Stripe gives. I do wish you would not dodge responding to some issues where it may pinch a bit – like the question (in another thread) about why you think Walt Brown is in error on frozen mammoths.

I didn't answer that question in another thread? I wouldn't have answered for other reasons, but not because it "pinched".

Walt is wrong because the ice age after the flood is much more likely.

I am not a molecular biologist, and I am sure Alate is better positioned to handle that question than I am. As I already explained to Stripe, at the morphological level it appears that Alate presented a very reasonable progression of increasing complexity.

But it's just a fantastic story until you can answer some basic questions.

I admit that gradualism in morphological presentation does not preclude radical nucleotide differences.

And the more radical the nucleotide differences are, the less chance they evolved from a common ancestor. So until you have data on the differences, don't claim they are from a common ancestor.

But with the specific examples Alate provided, since they are not claimed to lie in a single line of descent, comparison of the DNA is probably not highly meaningful anyway.

Until you have the DNA comparison, you've got nothing.

If we could reach far back into the actual ancestral lines and get DNA, then indeed the evolution seen in the DNA would be of substantial import.

We can use the DNA of the ancestors to begin with.

These pie-in-the-sky slaps at the integrity of the entire opposing camp are a poor way to conduct a conversation. There are specific members on each side who demonstrate that they seem to be “flying monkey stupid”, but do you really think the whole evolutionist community is a bunch of intellectually deficient hucksters?

You make the mistake of imparting "flying monkey stupid" to people where I only issued it to the idea. There are a lot of smart people that accept a stupid idea here and there. In fact I'd bet every smart person believes at least one stupid idea. Take Walt Brown for example.

When evaluated on issues other than their acceptance of evolutionary theory, huge swaths of the evolutionist community will match the fundamentalists in almost every meaningful way – compassion for the poor, obedience to law, respect for parents, intelligence, and so on.

Eh, the stats belie your claim, but that's another topic and I won't get into it here.

I don’t know what you mean by “non-selectable” nucleotides.

I don't know what you mean by saying I said something about "non-selectable" nucleotides. Here's my statement again and we'll see if you can take another go at it "Demonstrate non-selectable nucleotide changes spreading in a population; and at the same time avoiding mutational load; to the point where a complex organ required for survival is created."

And evolution does not have to create (initially) an organ that is required for survival.

Yeah, we know. But it does have to create (initially) something that is selectable.

It only has to marginally improve the reproductive success of those who have the improvement. Think brown fur giving way to white fur.

Fine. But as Alate will tell you, most nucleotide changes will not create something that is even a marginal improvement.

What does that mean – to change something at the phylum level?

It's an arbitrary level of change that precludes programmed variation.

For example. One can get vast differences in bugs with an exoskeleton, but that could be caused by programming already present in DNA. To prove the point, you have to get outside the possibility of programmed variation and demonstrate something like changing the exoskeleton to an endoskeleton.

If 25% of the (coding) DNA is altered, I suspect you will have far exceeded the changes normally found within a phylum.

Could be. I would tend to doubt it though.

Isn’t geology Stripe’s forte? It isn’t mine.

Yeah, but I need to get the info from you (or another evolutionist you trust) for you to believe it.

 

[Yorzhik]

Referring to evidence falsifying evolution:

I know alwight asked for a citation, and got a brush-off. But I too would be interested in what this falsifying evidence is that you think evolutionists have found.

Like the sediment map data or the number of nucleotide differences, all the data I get has to come from the evolutionist I'm talking to or they don't believe it.

 

[Yorzhik]

It wasn't worth answering since, you and I both know that science does not currently know every single gene involved in making hearts and what are the differences between them in every organism.

Yeah... I did know that.

Which I know from experience is what you would demand. The old, we must know EVERYTHING or we actually know nothing refrain you keep using here. However, quite a few genes are well studied, but the picture is by no means complete. Here's an essay covering at least one aspect

No, you must know some basic things before you can make a claim. The number of changes is not "EVERYTHING", but it's one of the first things you need to know to make your claim.

 

[DavisBJ]

The sequence has nothing to do with evolution.

Dodging the question is not a good tactic. Is the sequence of hearts Alate showed commensurate with what would be expected if evolution were true?

Are you more complex than them?

That is not what you said, and not what I responded to.

It shows that there might be any number of reasons why the complexity increases.

But the question you are dodging is whether hearts would be expected to increase in complexity over evolutionary time.

Answer Y's question. :up:

Alate already did. I take it you are incapable of showing that those are “giant leaps”.

 

[Yorzhik]

Alate already did.

LOL, her answer was "I'm not going to answer." And you just called that an answer...

I take it you are incapable of showing that those are “giant leaps”.

It's your theory, you provide the data.

But don't blame us for being skeptical in the light of your lack of data since, having 3 billion nucleotides of DNA, if just .1% of those is involved with building the heart and it's integration into the body system... that's still 3 million nucleotides. That's a lot of letters to line up and it isn't ridiculous to think that there are a number of wilding varying possibilities that could make other hearts and their integration into other systems.

 

[alwight]

But it's just a fantastic story until you can answer some basic questions.

How come you don't like fantastic stories all of a sudden? :idunno:

 

[Jukia]

Walt is wrong because the ice age after the flood is much more likely.


But it's just a fantastic story until you can answer some basic questions.

Walt is wrong, period.

Just a fantastic story unless you can answer some basic questions? Oh, the irony.

 

[DavisBJ]

I didn't answer that question in another thread? I wouldn't have answered for other reasons, but not because it "pinched".

Walt is wrong because the ice age after the flood is much more likely.

My apologies, in the “Origin of Limestone” thread I mentioned your parting with Walt on the Mammoth issue. I thought you had already posted in that thread, and would be watching it. I see you had not. Gomen nasai.

But it's just a fantastic story until you can answer some basic questions.

I really don’t understand the pathological resistance you guys have to a simple admission that if evolution progressed from simpler forms up to us, that a sequence of hearts in various levels of complexity is commensurate with that. It doesn’t prove evolution. It doesn’t even make the claim that the stages of heart complexity shown are the ones that our ancestors went through. It only shows that simple hearts are found in nature, slightly more complex hearts are found, and so on. At least morphologically, it presents a candidate set of stages our hearts might have evolved through, and that hearts can be simple, or a bit more complex, and still more complex.

And the more radical the nucleotide differences are, the less chance they evolved from a common ancestor. So until you have data on the differences, don't claim they are from a common ancestor.

Sound like the only measurement that will satisfy you is DNA analysis. If that is true, then since the vast majority of creatures that are known only from the fossil record are sans DNA, then you think we are impotent at making judgments about how they fit in a tree of life. I think you are being silly by demanding data that in many cases, no longer exists.

Until you have the DNA comparison, you've got nothing.

Yup, then you think we have to allow that trilobites and pterodactyls and brontosaurus might all literally be first cousins.

We can use the DNA of the ancestors to begin with.

And for any person not demanding an unreasonable level of proof, morphology can be used to suggest paths of development.

You make the mistake of imparting "flying monkey stupid" to people where I only issued it to the idea. There are a lot of smart people that accept a stupid idea here and there. In fact I'd bet every smart person believes at least one stupid idea.

The “idea” you disparage with that label is one of the core ideas accepted by the vast majority of those in the scientific community that have taken the time to look into it. It is no different than me labeling all religions as repositories of lies designed to salve the moral cowardice of people afraid of death. I haven’t disparaged Christians, only that opiate-dealing organization they go to on Sundays.

Take Walt Brown for example.

I agree with you, but now you are on Stripe’s black list.

I don't know what you mean by saying I said something about "non-selectable" nucleotides. Here's my statement again and we'll see if you can take another go at it "Demonstrate non-selectable nucleotide changes spreading in a population; and at the same time avoiding mutational load; to the point where a complex organ required for survival is created."

What do you mean by “non-selectable” in the context you use it?

Yeah, we know. But it does have to create (initially) something that is selectable.

Are you using the term “selectable” as meaning something natural selection can act on?

Fine. But as Alate will tell you, most nucleotide changes will not create something that is even a marginal improvement.

Agreed. Most are neutral. Of those that are not neutral, most are deleterious. Occasionally one is beneficial. Like brown fur giving way to white.

It's an arbitrary level of change that precludes programmed variation.

For example. One can get vast differences in bugs with an exoskeleton, but that could be caused by programming already present in DNA. To prove the point, you have to get outside the possibility of programmed variation and demonstrate something like changing the exoskeleton to an endoskeleton.

So what you are asking for is novelty – introducing something not already found in the parent genome. How perfectly does your DNA duplicate that of your parents?

Could be. I would tend to doubt it though.

I am basing my statement on the claim that only a few percent of the DNA is encoding. Like someone said, at the DNA level, most of us are much closer to being bananas than our outward appearance would suggest.

Yeah, but I need to get the info from you (or another evolutionist you trust) for you to believe it.

I haven’t figured out what “it” is that you think geology data will help us to believe.

 

[DavisBJ]

LOL, her answer was "I'm not going to answer." And you just called that an answer...

Context please. Her answer was “I’m not going to answer (because) you and I both know that science does not currently know every single gene involved in making hearts and what are the differences between them in every organism. Yeah, I think that is a fine answer. I wonder about you asking for data that doesn’t exist, and may be lost in ages past.

It's your theory, you provide the data.

As I have repeated several times, I am looking at the increase in morphological complexity. That is as clear in those figures to you as it is to me.

But don't blame us for being skeptical in the light of your lack of data since, having 3 billion nucleotides of DNA, if just .1% of those is involved with building the heart and its integration into the body system... that's still 3 million nucleotides. That's a lot of letters to line up and it isn't ridiculous to think that there are a number of wilding varying possibilities that could make other hearts and their integration into other systems.

The DNA data is your demand, not mine. As to the amount of DNA alteration that would be required to go from each heart to the next one up in complexity, you can spout big-sounding numbers all you want. I don’t know where you are going with talking of integrating into other systems. But it sounds like you are making a point that Dawkins did in “Climbing Mount Improbable” – that often there are “a number of wilding varying possibilities”. Is that bad?

 

[DavisBJ]

Like the sediment map data or the number of nucleotide differences, all the data I get has to come from the evolutionist I'm talking to or they don't believe it.

Let’s quit playing word games. Let’s recap -

Alwight said:

I reckon that a YEC of any real faith and moral fibre would be out there right now looking for falsifying evidence but maybe even they know it won't be found.

You responded:

Why? The evolutionists found it for us.

Now when both alwight and I ask what evidence you say that “evolutionists found”, you allude to some indefinite sediment map or nucleotide data. If that is as specific as you can get, then you are bluffing when you say that an evolutionist found falsifying data.

 

[Alate_One]

No, you must know some basic things before you can make a claim. The number of changes is not "EVERYTHING", but it's one of the first things you need to know to make your claim.

How about you reply to the essay I linked? It's not that long or hard to understand. Or are you so dishonest that you think me making guesses as to "how many nucleotides are different" has any utility to anyone?

 

[alwight]

Like the sediment map data or the number of nucleotide differences, all the data I get has to come from the evolutionist I'm talking to or they don't believe it.

It really doesn't matter where data or evidence is sourced from providing it is real and testable. Get it from AiG if you must so long as it can be reasonably assessed and hopefully it is then not designed simply to obfuscate and distract.
Such as:
The OP for example talks of:

"What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy!"
Which leads you to this:
"The evolutionary astronomy model has failed. Recent discoveries have revealed that each planet in our Solar System defies this model in multiple ways."

What do you think this rather spurious use of "evolutionary", which is then supposed to have failed, means in this context?
It is surely deliberately meant to be conflated with the ToE which it is not. As far as I'm aware at least no particular "evolutionary astronomy model" has even been proposed let alone failed, or has anything to do with spider's webs and termites. No distinction has been made.
This is what rather happens when there is a background agenda, such as AiG or other creationist sites may offer.

 

[Stripe]

Is the sequence of hearts Alate showed commensurate with what would be expected if evolution were true? ...are hearts expected to increase in complexity over evolutionary time.

The hearts presented were from things alive today.

 

[DavisBJ]

The hearts presented were from things alive today.

Thank you for your kindergarten answer. Now go play.