The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[beingofone]

El_Machinae:

You seem to be fixated on this plant/animal divide, but you don't really make any sense about your complaint. Plants didn't come from animals, or vis versa - they each developed from diverging Eukaryote lines. Animals evolved from Eukaryotes that didn't evolve into plants. If you go back far enough, you'll eventually get a common Eukaryote ancestor.

Are they linked or not?

What allows a mutation beyond the boundaries of plant/animal, a single cell?

But a trillion cells do not have this intrinsic advantage?

Why are trillions of cells deprived of the ability to adapt beyond a single?

It is nonsense, regardless all the brainiacs trying to find a way to exclude what is beyond their limited concepts of the experience of life itself.

Let's look at the flying squirrel. Can you imagine selection pressure that could occur in the evironment, such that improved gliding ability would be an advantage? Would you think that this would lead to superior or inferior gliding? Would the wing flaps become larger in this case? I think so.

Without a doubt there is evolution within reproducing species.

That does not mean that a squirrel crawled out of a swamp, changed its gills into lungs and then, developed wings.

I think your confusion is that you think evolution pundits think it goes towards something, de novo. That's not the way it works. Evolution takes something that's useful already and co-opts it for another use, if it can

I know.

It postulates what cannot ever be duplicated or predicted. That is not science, that is a religion and a belief system.

And, to be very clear, do you understand that the cat (frozen for a million years) would not be able to reproduce with its decendants? That there would be a new species?

Could you give a real life example?


brennan:

What, you think that an actual creature mutates and that is evolution? (Please tell me this isn't what you believe.)

No, no, no:

The genetic information passed down to the next generation changes. The next generation grows slightly differently, that is how it works. A mouse never mutated wings overnight and then become a bat. What you are describing is a sort of mutation caused by damage to DNA (which can cause cancer), not replication error.

Then by all means explain how a single cell 'learned' how to fly.

Macroevolution doesn't 'know' anything, that is why you end up with sub optimal characteristics, such as the poor arrangement of the eye. How is half a wing a survival trait? It lets you arrest a fall, gives you better control when you leap to the next tree, lets you glide maybe. Look up flying squirrels, they have 'half a wing'. Off hand I can think of species of frogs and lizards that have rather less than half a wing and use it to their advantage.

You are postulating that they 'learned' how to fly, used it to their advantage to reproduce on such an epic scale it effected the entire species universal?

So; one single solitary squirrel developed half a wing, had lots of girlfriends and reproduced so many offspring it effected the whole around the globe?

Nonsense and absurd.

That postulate cannot be tested, duplicated, or falsified.


warpus:

which part of this diagram do you not agree with? Which part do you think doesn't happen and is wrong?

You have a knack for ignoring requests such as these, but I hope you cooperate in the interests of continuing this discussion in a meaningful manner.

Thank you for the civil response Warpus.

It postulates that interbreeding is possible up to the line of divergence. How does simple, less complex organisms, adapt to create hybrid mutations when trillions of cells, in complex life forms, are deprived of this magical ability?

Please explain how this makes sense.


Lord Parkin:

Once again you have avoided the question. How is ID a science?

I will give you one example to chew on.

Is DNA random or designed? If it is designed, it has predictive power and can be falsified, tested, and observed.

You're talking to me about having a closed mind?

Consider this; the whole point of science is to keep an open mind - but not so widely open that your whole brain starts falling out of your head.

Consider this; materialistic science postulates that what cannot be observed cannot be true - that is utter nonsense and is in conflict with our day to day experience.

What is the taste of an apple?

Because you do not seem to have a point. And you will not have one, until you start offering evidence for why ID is a science, rather than merely picking out small pieces of evolution which you do not personally agree with (all of which can be explained by science anyway), and setting up vast paddocks of strawmen.

As long as retain the blind belief that all things are material, you will not be able to see the forest for the trees.


sanabas:

Nobody has said they are not related. Animals and plants ARE related. They are COUSINS. One IS NOT the lineal descendant of the other.

More shrouding into mystery so that its grand postulate cannot be possibly falsified.

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MACROEVOLUTION. One verified example of the macroevolution you keep blabbering about would immediately prove evolutionary theory to be wrong. If you want to argue about how evolution is simply hocus pocus and propaganda, learn what it actually says.

Okay Fuzzy Bunny; why is a mule not able to reproduce?

Is it an advantage for possums and squirrels alive now to use their protowings to glide?

Yes; who taught the first one to fly?

I have a challenge for you. Please give me one example of a complex behaviour, or a complex 'design' that could NOT have arisen as a long series of very smal changes. Just one. You come up with a successful example, and I'll accept evolution is false. So will most biologists.

Plant/animal hybrid.

Oh of course the answer will be "a real life example."

So evolution is true as long as we cannot see what is not here? That is smoke and mirrors and retreating from careful analysis.

If they can postulate that early life diverged into distinct lines and is now not capable of utilizing the same abilities that created it, that is absurd and wishful thinking.



The Last Conformist:

What's truly mindblowing is that he insists that the scientific community thinks not what it says it thinks but his strawman thereof. I mean, he's actually claiming to believe that scientists believe in obvious bunk, and that the plausible theories they present are just smokescreens that need not be addressed.

What plausible theory?

Do you mean the ones that cannot be tested, falsified, observed, or predicted?

Am I to infer you don't understand the distinction between germ and somatic cell lines?

So charged programming leads to less adaptation?

How does that insure fresh ability to survival mutation?

That is a nonanswer.

The theory:
A single cell needed to mutate into distinct lines to make the theory work, so they did.

A complex organism cannot interbreed so, in order for the theory to work, they cannot.

Nonsense.

beingofone
If it takes millions of years, is random changes in DNA , and only keeps what is survivable - how many birds had to die jumping out of trees before it became an advantage while trying to use their brand new wings? Billions maybe?

TLC:
You're aware that not all trees are tall enough that a jump from one is fatal, are you?

No; but crawling out onto dry land with gills would be fatal, would it not? How about crawling into water with lungs?

How did a single bird learn to fly and spred its genes to the population of the entire earth?

Whatch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

Presto, hocus pocus.

 

[warpus]

It postulates that interbreeding is possible up to the line of divergence.

How is this a problem?

There isn't a specific line of divergence either - it is a bit more muddy than that. The world isn't black and white.

How does simple, less complex organisms, adapt to create hybrid mutations when trillions of cells, in complex life forms, are deprived of this magical ability?

What do you mean by hybrid mutations? There is no magical ability.

Is DNA random or designed? If it is designed, it has predictive power and can be falsified, tested, and observed.

So what are these predictions then? Please list a couple!

Consider this; materialistic science postulates that what cannot be observed cannot be true - that is utter nonsense and is in conflict with our day to day experience.

Not in the least - we have never observed a supercontinent, yet we know one must have existed, a long time ago.

Yes; who taught the first one to fly?

Squirrels jump from tree to tree. Squireels that could jump farther had an evolutionary advantage and were more likely to pass their genes on to the next generation. Therefore, traits that allowed squirrels to jump farther and glide became more prevelant in the population.

Over time this produced a species of flying squirrels.

No; but crawling out onto dry land with gills would be fatal, would it not? How about crawling into water with lungs?

So you don't believe that dolphins exist?

 

[Dr Tiny]

The prime tennant of design is the concept of irreducible complexity. That is something appears so complex that if you take one part of it away it would not be able to function - the two most used examples being bacterial flagella and the human eye.

However, thefailing of irreducible complexity is that the observer invokes it because at our level of understanding of biology they can not, or refuse to, see how such a structure could arise over an evolutionary time scale. It fails to take into account future research that can show eg how a flagella can function when parts are removed or that a flagella has seconary roles, or that 'half an eye' does exist in most land animals and functions as a circadian clock.

IC and thus design are not science and can not explain the world around us. Evolution on the other hand is hard science and is supported by a multitude of evidence from many branches of science and it most definately is not a belief system.

edit - Mules
Mules are evidence for evolution. They show that the horse and donkey lineages have recently split and still have some ability to breed, this is predicted by evolution (see diagram on page 30). Most, BUT NOT ALL, mules are sterile because they have an odd number of chromosomes caused because donkeys and horses have different numbers (62 and 64, respectively), in no way does this destroy the theory of evolution, in fact it supports the theory of evolution as it demonstrates that horses and donkeys are on the path of speciation.

The most recent example I could find of a mule being able to breed was in 2002.

edit - Gills, lungs and gas exchange.
It is not diffcult for a gill to assume the function of a modern lung, they are after all only gas exchange membranes and it does not take a huge ammount of 'engineering' to go from a gill to a lung. Given that we have fish that can survive out of water for a short periods eg climbing perch, it is not difficult for the proto-squirrel to come under evolutionary pressure to adapt to land living eg no proto-squirrel predators on land.

 

[carlosMM]

Dr. Tiny: but lungs derive not from gills, but from an extension of the digestive tract. The weird and obviously quite un-designed ways of evolution!

 

[The Last Conformist]

What plausible theory?

Do you mean the ones that cannot be tested, falsified, observed, or predicted?

No, I mean the tried, tested, and observed theories of natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, etc.

So charged programming leads to less adaptation?

How does that insure fresh ability to survival mutation?

Word salad.

That is a nonanswer.

Duh! You're replying to a question.

The theory:
A single cell needed to mutate into distinct lines to make the theory work, so they did.

A complex organism cannot interbreed so, in order for the theory to work, they cannot.

Nonsense.

More word salad.

No; but crawling out onto dry land with gills would be fatal, would it not? How about crawling into water with lungs?

I can't imagine why you think that. A basic familiarity with modern animals would show you neither is necessarily fatal.

How did a single bird learn to fly and spred its genes to the population of the entire earth?

Flight isn't a unitary character (as evidenced by the fact that eagles and hummingbird don't fly the same way), and will have emerged gradually, so that part of your question doesn't make any sense. As for spreading the genes, they slept around.

 

[Lord Parkin]

[Plants and animals]
Are they linked or not?

Yes, they are. Very distantly.

What allows a mutation beyond the boundaries of plant/animal, a single cell?

Once again with the "black and white" boundaries. Firstly a plant does not decide in one moment to instantly turn into an animal, nor vice versa. They descended from a common ancestor. However, there is not some point at which this ancestor suddenly "crossed the boundary" and switched into plants and animals. You once again show an astounding lack of knowledge if you believe this. There are no clear boundaries - evolution is a gradual process. Just because we humans choose to classify things into different species, etc, does not mean that they suddenly leap from one stage to the next. They are simply convenient ways of defining stages in the process of evolution at different time periods.

Why are trillions of cells deprived of the ability to adapt beyond a single?

You make no sense. Try reading over what you write before you post.

It is nonsense, regardless all the brainiacs trying to find a way to exclude what is beyond their limited concepts of the experience of life itself.

Well, you certainly display a lot of maturity by labelling people as 'brainiacs'. How old are you supposed to be, again?

Again you show a vast lack of sense here. You are confusing your creationist "science" with actual science. Science does not start with pre-formed beliefs, and then exclude all contradictory evidence in order to support that belief. That is creationism.

So, you are saying that scientists exclude evidence that cannot be observed. What would you propose instead then - that we include all evidence which cannot be observed? You're going to have one colossal jumbled mess of an infinite amount of possible theories, then.

It [evolution] postulates what cannot ever be duplicated or predicted. That is not science, that is a religion and a belief system.

Wow, you must have an extraordinarily low and warped opinion of religion if you think that evolution is one.

And you have logically undermined yourself - by the above you now admit that creationism is not a science.

You are postulating that they 'learned' how to fly, used it to their advantage to reproduce on such an epic scale it effected the entire species universal?

So; one single solitary squirrel developed half a wing, had lots of girlfriends and reproduced so many offspring it effected the whole around the globe?

Nonsense and absurd.

Yep, I agree. These pointless straw men are nonsense and absurd. You're not proving anything, and are only succeeding in making yourself look ridiculous.

That postulate [above quote] cannot be tested, duplicated, or falsified.

Of course it can't, you just made it up.

The postulate that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists also cannot be tested, duplicated, or falsified. Neither can a countless number of other postulates that you could make up on the spot.

Lord Parkin: [How is ID a science?]

I will give you one example to chew on.

Is DNA random or designed? If it is designed, it has predictive power and can be falsified, tested, and observed.

It's now clear to me that it is fairly pointless to continue debating with you, since you do not appear to even listen to yourself, let alone other people. You already asked this exact same question just a few pages ago; and I provided you with an answer.

What I said was that DNA is not designed. However, it is not entirely random either. As usual, it's the "black or white" creationist question - designed or random. Just because something isn't designed does not mean that it is absolutely random. Non sequitur.

In fact, if you understood evolution at all, you would know that it postulates the exact opposite of randominity and chance. But I don't know why I bother trying to explain it again - you obviously don't bother listening.

Consider this; materialistic science postulates that what cannot be observed cannot be true - that is utter nonsense

Indeed, what you say is utter nonsense. Science does not say that something is false just because it cannot be observed. That is creationism. There are a countless number of things which cannot be directly observed by scientists, and yet they are widely held to be accurate and true. (Innumerable astronomical objects, for one example. The composition of the centre of the Earth is another.)

So, what you propose is nonsense. Once again, you seem to reverse the characteristics of creationist "science" with actual science.

What is the taste of an apple?

The relevance being...?

As long as retain the blind belief that all things are material, you will not be able to see the forest for the trees.

Well, if you're the physicist that you claim to be, you should know that scientists know that not all things in the universe are material. Really, I would have expected that even you would know that - it's a rather shameful reflection on your credibility that you don't.

More shrouding into mystery so that its grand postulate cannot be possibly falsified.

Word soup.

Okay Fuzzy Bunny; why is a mule not able to reproduce?

Why does it matter, if we're having a debate about evolution?

So evolution is true as long as we cannot see what is not here? That is smoke and mirrors and retreating from careful analysis.

Replace the word "evolution" with "creationism" (you've mixed them up again), and you're correct.

If they can postulate that early life diverged into distinct lines and is now not capable of utilizing the same abilities that created it, that is absurd and wishful thinking.

It is absurd that you would make an argument like that. Where is your proof that life is not still capable of evolving?

What plausible theory?

Do you mean the ones that cannot be tested, falsified, observed, or predicted?

The exact opposite. Again.

How did a single bird learn to fly and spred its genes to the population of the entire earth?

So, now you deny that reproduction is possible?

Why does it have to be a single bird? Evolution is gradual; there would have been many birds right through the process.

 

[ironduck]

Maybe some biology books would be in place? If that's too hard, you could try these..

 

[Phlegmak]

That does not mean that a squirrel crawled out of a swamp, changed its gills into lungs and then, developed wings.

This isn't evolution, as you know. Animals just don't develop new body parts, except in science fiction. Haven't the other users been trying to tell you that evolution doesn't work that way?

No; but crawling out onto dry land with gills would be fatal, would it not? How about crawling into water with lungs?

By the way, have you heard of the mudskipper?

 

[brennan]

That does not mean that a squirrel crawled out of a swamp, changed its gills into lungs and then, developed wings.Thank you for the civil response Warpus...

Yes; who taught the first one to fly?...

No; but crawling out onto dry land with gills would be fatal, would it not? How about crawling into water with lungs?...

How did a single bird learn to fly and spred its genes to the population of the entire earth?

All of the above quotes seem to imply that you believe evolutioon happens over very short time frames. We have said to you repeatedly that this is not the case.

To give you a specific example, the flying squirrel has evolved a mechanism that lets it glide long distances: flaps of skin between it's legs. It is easy to see that smaller flaps of skin would have had utility, so there is nothing stopping you from seeing that these flaps could have evolved a little at a time over many thousands of generations, at no time was a squirrel simply born with these huge flaps of skin, they grow little by little over many generations, as genes that produce and enhance them become selected for (because they have some small survival value) and those genes that produce smaller flaps disappear (because they have less/no survival value).

I could speculate that flying squirrels are now on the path to becoming the next set of winged creatures. Natural selection willl favour more accomplished gliders, those with longer, stronger forelimbs will naturally have more control over their flight, genes that tend to produce squirrels with these better attributes will become dominant in the gene-pool, those for shorter and weaker limbs will disappear, over many thousands of generations the population will slowly evolve into something that may resemble a bat. Note that this never requires a flying squirrel to be suddenly born with fully fledged wings, the strawman you keep refuting, but rather slow and gradual change that in any one generation is not likely to be visible as anything other than variations upon a theme. Wait a million years and you have the ultimate proof of course.

Please stop with this moronic posture that evolution is not falsifiable, we have given you examples of possible falsifications. You can also cut out the 'no predictive power' BS for the same reason: read what people write.

 

[El_Machinae]

I could speculate that flying squirrels are now on the path to becoming the next set of winged creatures.

Bah, you tree-squirrel lovers are all the same! I speculate that they will migrate to a place where the trees will get smaller, and that the flaps will become useless (and on the way to vestigial). However, a pigment mutation will give them utility as a predator mimicker (the 'eyes' on the flaps will migrate to look more and more like a bobcat's face. They will become less 'winglike' and more 'facelike' over time.

But wait! The tree-squirrel variety and the bobcat-squirrel can exist at the same time, because their original difference was that one tribe migrated. However, the vast difference between them will make them eventually different species.

Are we agreeing, amazingly, that two vastly different species could evolve from the same flying-squirrel ancestor species? A winged version, and a version with flaps that look like a predator? Are we agreeing that one species could evolve towards two different styles, based on different selection pressures? And that they co-exist in different habitats?

Wow!

 

[brennan]

Absolutely, that's why I said it was speculation, it has to have the right conditions to become true.

 

[Dr Tiny]

Dr. Tiny: but lungs derive not from gills, but from an extension of the digestive tract. The weird and obviously quite un-designed ways of evolution!

Indeed, thus allowing the uptake of more oxygen for metabolism and I believe gills share similarities with various glands found in mammals. Thus we have nice examples of evolution. It also allows frogs to have both gills and lungs. And some animals have neither and use their skin as the point of gas exchange.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Apropos of nothing:

I used some of my Christmas money to buy Evolution, a collection of Scientific American articles. There are three sections (stellar, cellular, and human evolution) and it is fascinating.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Apropos of nothing:

I used some of my Christmas money to buy Evolution, a collection of Scientific American articles. There are three sections (stellar, cellular, and human evolution) and it is fascinating.

I subscribe to SA... it's a very useful way for the layman to get educated in many of the modern scientific findings.

 

[Babbler]

Apropos of nothing:

I used some of my Christmas money to buy Evolution, a collection of Scientific American articles. There are three sections (stellar, cellular, and human evolution) and it is fascinating.

I sometimes buy SA for my trips from Montreal to Ottawa and vice versa. It's great for those long trips.

I bought Evolution by Carl Zimmer. It's a great introduction.

Here's a good list of evolution books, and (in the interests of fairness) creationism books

 

[Dr Tiny]

blimey down to page 4

Just thought this article might be of interest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442.html

Briefly, it looks like advocates of design want it to be taught in British schools I expect those of us in the UK will see a wave of court actions in the near future.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not strictly related to evo/cre, but probably of interest to many readers of this thread; Kent Hovind, AKA "Dr Dino", has been sentenced to ten years for tax fraud. More info from the Pensacola News Journal.

 

[Xanikk999]

I subscribe to SA... it's a very useful way for the layman to get educated in many of the modern scientific findings.

Agreed, but since they cover such a wide variety of scientific topics in detail which only experts or those with great knowledge of would understand, i dont get all of it.

 

[classical_hero]

This might be a surprise to you all (not), but I subscribe to Creation Magazine by CMI. The o

 

[Erik Mesoy]

This might be a surprise to you all (not), but I subscribe to Creation Magazine by CMI. The o

What happened to that post?