The Age-old Argument

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Before you discard the past few posts out of hand, FL2, allow me to point out a couple of points that I consider valid enough for further scrutiny:

1) Yes, man has been selectively breeding for millennia and granted, we haven't managed to mutate a dog, but on the other hand evolution is a process considered to take place over tens to hundreds of *millions* of years. You have a point about selective breeding hastening the periods required for evolution, but does it do so to a high enough degree? Without looking at the math, my gut instinct is no. (Though you might be particularly biased here since, if I'm not mistaken, you've also argued that there's no proof that the Earth is over 10,000 years old or so.)

2) You didn't address Kefka's point about bacterial and viral mutations. If we're going to look at the time scale required for mutations, then certainly microorganisms offer the best way to 'speed' up time in the lab. And as far as I know, they have been observed to mutate.

3) This just popped into my head, but here goes anyway: If bacteria can mutate, but higher organisms haven't been observed to do so, might it not be more logical to infer that higher organisms either do not mutate any more having reached a certain level of complexity (or at least mutate a *vastly* slower rate) than to jump straight to what must surely be the final option (using Occam's shaving tool) and declare AHA! there's a god?

 

[SunTzu]

I'm not sure to believe, i'm a Catholic though. It's hard to believe the thought of Evolution w/o a helping hand from the greater being.
Maybe darwin was somewhat right about evolution but God is controling it. Also there's signs of Dinosaurs, well they're not mentioned in the Bible anywhere, that raises questions for me.
Maybe there's a missing part of the bible reveiling the other parts earths history....

------------------
Civilization God of War & Economic Prosperity
http://www.civfanatics.com Staff and forum moderator

<IMG SRC="http://www.homestead.com/house_of_lux/files/suntzu1.gif" border=0>
Elevators always smell different to midgets

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
Before you discard the past few posts out of hand, FL2, allow me to point out a couple of points that I consider valid enough for further scrutiny:

Given that I took the time to address them, I'd hardly consider myself guilty of dismissing them out of hand.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
1) Yes, man has been selectively breeding for millennia and granted, we haven't managed to mutate a dog, but on the other hand evolution is a process considered to take place over tens to hundreds of *millions* of years. You have a point about selective breeding hastening the periods required for evolution, but does it do so to a high enough degree? Without looking at the math, my gut instinct is no. (Though you might be particularly biased here since, if I'm not mistaken, you've also argued that there's no proof that the Earth is over 10,000 years old or so.)

Well, as to the speed, we'll get to that below. You are, however, mistaken. I am NOT a 'young earth' Creationist. The earth and the universe are billions of years old.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
2) You didn't address Kefka's point about bacterial and viral mutations. If we're going to look at the time scale required for mutations, then certainly microorganisms offer the best way to 'speed' up time in the lab. And as far as I know, they have been observed to mutate.

Take two identical bacterium. Give one immunity to penecillin, leave the other alone. Are they now two different species, or just different breeds of the same germ? Can they mate? Do they eat the same food, inhabit the same environment, have the same appearance? Is there any reason to suspect that the penecillin-resisting bacterium is going to transform itself into a paramecium?

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
3) This just popped into my head, but here goes anyway: If bacteria can mutate, but higher organisms haven't been observed to do so, might it not be more logical to infer that higher organisms either do not mutate any more having reached a certain level of complexity (or at least mutate a *vastly* slower rate) than to jump straight to what must surely be the final option (using Occam's shaving tool) and declare AHA! there's a god?

Since 'lower' organisms don't 'mutate' either, just acquire and discard traits while remaining the same basic organism, this argument holds no weight. To say that a grey moth and a black moth are two different species is to say that a European and an AmerIndian are two different species. After years of debate, evolutionists have retreated so far from the battlefield, that their 'official' definition of evolution now reads something like this:

Evolution is the process by which allelles change in frequency in a population.

The above statement is so tepid, that it is unassailable. Of course, it also utterly fails to address biodiversity. On the TalkOrigins archive, I have been moved to laughter by their shrewd, hair-splitting analyses of esoteric, fringe topics. It seems evident to any watching from the stands that the evolutionists have withdrawn from the field to regroup, and left behind a rear guard with smoke projectors and radar reflectors as a dummy target.

 

[Kefka]

Ok here are some other question for you to answer Fearlessleader! even thou on my other questions ya seemed ta avoid em and pawn off some half assed excuse!

why do hummans have a tail bone!if we never had a tail to begin with.

why do fish, chicken, and humman, look so much alike when they are forming in to a fetus!In the first few months of development they are all the same if you saw pictures of them side by side you would not be able to tell them apart!
They just form differently after the first month or so!

why do dinosars appear to have a similer bone strucure as birds!How can you explain that with out reverting to evolution!

Is a cat and a lion the same species?Im just trying to figure out what your definition of a species is? because it does not seem to be the same as everyone else here.


------------------
Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!
I will Create A monument to nothingness!



[This message has been edited by Kefka (edited June 04, 2001).]

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:

Originally posted by Kefka:
you say that because man has not seen in happen in about 6,000 years (which most of that time man did NOT classiffy species!)that it does not happen!
That is like going out to a street and saying I see no cars now so cars must NEVER come by!
This kind of stuff takes millions of years!

And selective breeding is a valid means of speeding up the research to get quicker results.

But the purpose of selective breeding is NOT to change the species but to get many many of the same GOOD species!
so how can you support your argument with that?
I mean though all this breeding has man ever tried to get anything different!


------------------
Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!
I will Create A monument to nothingness!

[This message has been edited by Kefka (edited June 04, 2001).]

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kefka:
you say that because man has not seen in happen in about 6,000 years (which most of that time man did NOT classiffy species!)that it does not happen!
That is like going out to a street and saying I see no cars now so cars must NEVER come by!
This kind of stuff takes millions of years!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the wolf-dog cross-breed, we generally call a mix of two breeds of dog a mutt. Wolves ARE dogs, dogs ARE wolves. Is this getting clearer yet?

By your definition Hummans are Chimps, Chimps are Humman. is this getting clearer yet?


------------------
Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!
I will Create A monument to nothingness!

[This message has been edited by Kefka (edited June 04, 2001).]

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Take two identical bacterium. Give one immunity to penecillin, leave the other alone. Are they now two different species, or just different breeds of the same germ? Can they mate? Do they eat the same food, inhabit the same environment, have the same appearance? Is there any reason to suspect that the penecillin-resisting bacterium is going to transform itself into a paramecium?

You miss the point. Bacteria don't mate. Yet they change. How? They are supposed to reproduce themselves *identically*, and yet they don't. They change according to their environment.

When one speaks of breeding dogs, one essentially means trying to match the mother's genetic traits with the father's etc. It is assumed that when this happens in nature chance dictates which offspring have the more useful traits according to the environment.

But that's not the case with microbes. The environment directly changes the DNA of *one* individual organism. Isn't that the definition of mutation?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
You miss the point. Bacteria don't mate. Yet they change. How? They are supposed to reproduce themselves *identically*, and yet they don't. They change according to their environment.

This is not even slightly true. Bacterium frequently run into each other, and when they do they swap genetic materiel by passing small pieces of it through their cell membranes to each other. They then bud new offspring or create spores that 'hatch' into new bacteria. Additionally, even if they did not mate(which they do, after a fashion), there is still the 'crossing over' effect, where genes transpose themselves during duplication by RNA and mRNA.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
When one speaks of breeding dogs, one essentially means trying to match the mother's genetic traits with the father's etc. It is assumed that when this happens in nature chance dictates which offspring have the more useful traits according to the environment.

According to Natural Selection, eventually, the animals with the BEST traits will eventually dominate thier gene pool. Selective Breeding speeds this up by taking the 'eventually' out of the equation and replacing it with 'immediately'. It also culls inferior organisms from the selection process just as immediately.

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
But that's not the case with microbes. The environment directly changes the DNA of *one* individual organism. Isn't that the definition of mutation?

I don't understand what the point you are trying to make with these sentences is. Could you dumb it down a notch for me? It sounds as if you are suggesting a reversion to Lamarckianism.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:
By your definition Hummans are Chimps, Chimps are Humman. is this getting clearer yet?

It's getting very clear that you aren't reading carefully. Now then, some basic biology. Doggies CAN mate with wolfies and have little puppies. Peoples CAN'T mate with chimpies or monkies or apeys. That means wolfies and doggies are the same species, and mannies and monkies aren't.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
And selective breeding is a valid means of speeding up the research to get quicker results.

Originally posted by Kefka:
But the purpose of selective breeding is NOT to change the species but to get many many of the same GOOD species!
so how can you support your argument with that? I mean though all this breeding has man ever tried to get anything different!

Are you implying that Natural Selection, a natural phenomenon, has some purpose? That it possesses or is controlled by some intelligence?

And I think shepherds had a great deal of changes in mind when they started breeding Wolves to get Collies that would not eat their sheep. Hunters had a great deal in mind when they bred Retrievers. Of course, the differences in these animals are so small that not even a devout evolutionist would try to claim they are different species. Or at least, they didn't used to have that much cheek. Nowadays they define speciation as the change in frequency of a single gene pair in a population. Oddly enough, they also chose that as the definition for evolution. Makes it real easy to make their case that way. Apparently a cow with brown spots id not the same species as a cow with black blotches. Don't make me laugh.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:
Ok here are some other question for you to answer Fearlessleader! even thou on my other questions ya seemed ta avoid em and pawn off some half assed excuse!

Hah. Just because the answers weren't what YOU wanted to hear...but just to be fair, I'll go back and make sure I didn't miss anything...Nope! I didn't!

Originally posted by Kefka:
why do hummans have a tail bone!if we never had a tail to begin with.

Because we need a place to hook all those ass muscles to.

Originally posted by Kefka:
why do fish, chicken, and humman, look so much alike when they are forming in to a fetus!In the first few months of development they are all the same if you saw pictures of them side by side you would not be able to tell them apart!
They just form differently after the first month or so!

Hmmm, let's see. Fish, Chickens, and Humans. All vertebrates. Why would they look alike at the earliest stages of their development from undifferentiated cells? It's not as if they all have to manufacture a very similar physiology. I mean sure, they all need a spine/endoskeleton, a cardiovascular system, musculature, a central nervous system, all of which have very similar characteristics, and are in the very earliest stages of construction...what was the question again?

Originally posted by Kefka:
why do dinosars appear to have a similer bone strucure as birds!How can you explain that with out reverting to evolution!

Why are chimp eyes arranged on their face the same way as other tree dwelling mammals that need good depth perception? Why do duckbill platypuses and ducks, both of which live in wetlands, both have a ducklike snout suitable for digging in mud? Why do most all mammals have fur? Gee, maybe bird-hipped dinosaurs walked more like birds and less like lizards, and lizard-hipped dinosaurs walked like lizards. Ya think?

Originally posted by Kefka:
Is a cat and a lion the same species?Im just trying to figure out what your definition of a species is? because it does not seem to be the same as everyone else here. [/B]

I'm pretty sure they are not. Of course, if someone gets them to mate successfully, I will change my tune. Question is, if someone showed YOU they can mate successfullly, would you change your tune?

[This message has been edited by FearlessLeader2 (edited June 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by FearlessLeader2 (edited June 05, 2001).]

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Bacterium frequently run into each other, and when they do they swap genetic materiel by passing small pieces of it through their cell membranes to each other. They then bud new offspring or create spores that 'hatch' into new bacteria. Additionally, even if they did not mate(which they do, after a fashion), there is still the 'crossing over' effect, where genes transpose themselves during duplication by RNA and mRNA.

But this is still not the same as mating, which I define--off the top of my head--as an individual creature sharing genetic material with another for the purpose (if I can use such a word without distracting you from my point if you please

) of producing more members of the same species.

Bacteria bumping into each other may cause them to share genetic material, but it's hardly the main means of bacterial reproduction. One bacterium by itself will after all spawn an entire new colony all on its own. I don't know how you can see this as 'mating'.

And genes transposing themselves during duplication... You mean they flip around? Get into different positions? Change?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Um, yeah, they change. Are you now implying that every child is a species unto itself, different from it's parents?

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
But that's not the case with microbes. The environment directly changes the DNA of *one* individual organism. Isn't that the definition of mutation?

FL2:

I don't understand what the point you are trying to make with these sentences is. Could you dumb it down a notch for me? It sounds as if you are suggesting a reversion to Lamarckianism.

What I mean is, bacteria don't mate, they mutate. And though you've addressed the first part of this staement, you haven't yet denied the second part.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Um, yeah, they change. Are you now implying that every child is a species unto itself, different from it's parents?

That's not the same thing. I'm talking about accidental change.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Let's hammer this out in the chatroom.

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Kefka:
why do hummans have a tail bone!if we never had a tail to begin with.

The anwer FearlessLeader2 had.Because we need a place to hook all those ass muscles to.
your ass muscles do NOT hook to your tail bone! It does nothing just like your apendex!
now the question is why do we have parts that we do not use!
the theory is that at some time we did use all those parts!
the apendex is beleved to be all that remains of a second stomach ya know like cows have!
and snakes have some extra bones that look like they once were feet!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.grworld.com/vanillacubesgames/files/kefka.gif" border=0>"Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!"
"I will Create A monument to nothingness!"

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Are you implying that Natural Selection, a natural phenomenon, has some purpose? That it possesses or is controlled by some intelligence?

And I think shepherds had a great deal of changes in mind when they started breeding Wolves to get Collies that would not eat their sheep. Hunters had a great deal in mind when they bred Retrievers. Of course, the differences in these animals are so small that not even a devout evolutionist would try to claim they are different species. Or at least, they didn't used to have that much cheek. Nowadays they define speciation as the change in frequency of a single gene pair in a population. Oddly enough, they also chose that as the definition for evolution. Makes it real easy to make their case that way. Apparently a cow with brown spots id not the same species as a cow with black blotches. Don't make me laugh.

there is a diffrence bettween Domestication and Natrual Breeding!
Apperantly you are just twisting words around to make the question ask whatever you want it to ask!
let me ask it in clear words
DID ANYONE EVER TRY AND CHANGE THE SPECIES!



------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.grworld.com/vanillacubesgames/files/kefka.gif" border=0>"Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!"
"I will Create A monument to nothingness!"

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:

Originally posted by Kefka:
why do hummans have a tail bone!if we never had a tail to begin with.

The anwer FearlessLeader2 had.Because we need a place to hook all those ass muscles to.
your ass muscles do NOT hook to your tail bone! It does nothing just like your apendex!
now the question is why do we have parts that we do not use!
the theory is that at some time we did use all those parts!
the apendex is beleved to be all that remains of a second stomach ya know like cows have!
and snakes have some extra bones that look like they once were feet!

Yes, and whales have what looks like a hip bone. Point is, all of these so-called vestigial organs and structures do have purposes. Our tail bone protects the lower portion of our spinal cord. Our appendix appears to acts as a storage place for stuff the stomach isn't sure what to do with, and it is usually when one of those somethings gets trapped in there that it gets infected and kills us. Whals attach many muscles to their supposedly vestigial hip-bones, likewise snakes with their 'feet'.
And yes, some muscles DO attach to the coccyx.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Kefka:
there is a diffrence bettween Domestication and Natrual Breeding!
Apperantly you are just twisting words around to make the question ask whatever you want it to ask!
let me ask it in clear words
DID ANYONE EVER TRY AND CHANGE THE SPECIES!

Let me state it in clear words. Yes. They changed the wolf from a dangerous predator to a hunting companion, a protector of herd animals, and a friend.