The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[The Last Conformist]

Well, I do know that gametes decrease in quality over time and mitochondria (elsewhere) degrade over time.

The biologists I've asked don't know this. Can you give me a reference for this?

Bluemofia - I don't believe there are telomeres in mitochondrial DNA.

There isn't.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

this thread was just ordered to move over here. Nice.

 

[El_Machinae]

Factors Influencing Egg Quality
Age plays a key role in determining both the quantity and quality of your eggs. Egg quality tends to decline as you grow older, as does the number of eggs available for use. This means that if you are older, it is likely that you eggs are declining in quality and may be contributing to your fertility problems.

http://sharedjourney.com/define/egg.html

I pulled up a quick link. Most invitrofertilisation clinics have a similar blurb.

Several mitochondrial functions decline with age. The contributing factors include, the intrinsic rate of proton leakage across the inner mitochondrial membrane (a correlate of oxidant formation), decreased membrane fluidity, and decreased levels and function of cardiolipin, which supports the function of many of the proteins of the inner mitochondrial membrane. Oxidants generated by mitochondria appear to be the major source of the oxidative lesions that accumulate with age. Evidence supports the suggestion that age-associated accumulation of mitochondrial deficits due to oxidative damage is likely to be a major contributor to cellular, tissue, and organismal aging.

Pubmed

 

[Bluemofia]

Thats exactly the tactic evolutionists use. Mix a little lie in with a little truth, a viola! You brainwash people.

I'm using this to prove your "if one part of the bible is right, all of it is right" tactic.

How do they form then? no. You are wrong. We don't have a clue how stars form.

Gravitational collapse of a cloud of mostly hydrogen dust. The dust comes togeather from a shockwave from a supernova, or a passing star, or something else, and the force of gravity causes it to collapse togeather faster. Once it reaches a certain point where it is small enough and hot enough from the collapse, it starts thermonuclear fusion, and then ignites, blowing away the remaining uncondensed gas nearby.

And you obviously haven't seen the eagle nebula, or the orion nebula. Go google it.

can I see those calculations? Because I think its pretty difficult to figure that out.

It is first calculated when people noticed the eclipse of Jupiter by it's moons were off (from the closest point Earth is to Jupiter, and the farthest point), and if light traveled instantanious, it would be completly unstable, and mess up the laws of universal gravitation. So, they just simply plug in the times observed, and the distances of Earth and Jupiter were in, and then find the velocity light has to be at to account for this. Thus, we have c.

Another way is:

Velocity = Frequency X Wavelength

It also puzzles me, if we can see how many trillion light years away, then why can't we see where either comets or stars form? But no, we can't. Our amazing science is selective? Is that what your telling me?

We can't because we can only see things that are luminous at large distances. Non-luminous objects do not reflect enough photons for us to detect them in great detail. We do not have omnicient telescopes. The best pictures of Pluto are blurry, and unclear. Pluto is only a mere 5 light hours away from the Earth. And comets should have formed somewhere in the oort cloud, which extends past the orbits of the Kippiur belt, and goes to about 1 light year. I am telling you that we do not have infinite observation power.

There is no Oort cloud - its still just a hypothesis! We know nothing of it!

Then explain where the comets that appear every once in a while that have never been seen before come from? There has to be an Oort cloud. Besides, Sedna, the newly discovered planet, is somewhere between the Oort cloud and the Kippur belt. And we can barely even get a clear photo of it. We can't see details or anything. Just light and dark spots.

Oh so the story has changed since I read about evolution like, yesterday. You people can't decide how many billion years old the earth is.

Give or take .5 billion years. Generally, it's accepted somewhere around 4.5 billion - 5.5 billion years. I would have to look it up.

Originally posted at the thread that diablo actually goes to. (so he won't have to deal with Perfy, Carlos, and TLC)

 

[Babbler]

May I repost my reply to one of diablodelmar's rants?

Picture this if you believe in evolution: A piece of software, take Civ4 as an example, has to have a designer to write the code that makes the game fun to play: it didn't randomly come into being. Even if, somehow, it did randomly create itself, it would not be fun to play! In the same way, you cannot create a watch by tipping all the odds and ends and all the parts that make a watch and somehow (maybe with an explosion - ) create a ticking, accurate timepiece.

The problem is you are not are still thinking that the object (Civ4, the software, the watch, living being) being consider has too come all in one piece at one time. That is not anything close to modern evolutionary theory; as it ignores the power of cumulative or iteratied selection. That "randomly produced program" may not work so well. But if you make several copies (i.e. reproduction) with randomly produced errors (i.e. mutation), run each copy of the software,select the best working copy and begin the process again. Over many iterations (repeating cycles of the process), you can be a pretty good piece of software.

Here is an example, if you were not prusayed by my prose. Steve Jones, a noted British geneticist, recent gave a public lecture (Why Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right) on this topic. IIRC, He talked about about how some soap manufacturers wanted to increase the productivity of the factories. They brought in physicists and mathematicians to help (intelligently) design a better hose. They were not successful. However, some biologist began proposed a pseudo-Darwinist process, a process of intertated selection. They started with a good hose. They made several copies (i.e. reproduction) with randomly produced errors (i.e. mutation), tested the hoses, select the best working copy and begin the process again. End result: a damn good hose for soap making.

Note the "pseudo-" in "pseudo-Darwinist process". Iterative selection, as outlined above, is not natural selection. These examples were selected by a person (who we assume to be intelligent) with a goal in mind. Natural selection occurs without an intelligent intervention or goal. The organisms are selected because they were able to survive long enough to reproduce, thus organisms very well adapted to the environment are produced.

If you are interested in this line of reason, go to check out the Bind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins or Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Danial Dennett, or any other book like these. They cover the same ground. He is an java applet based on The Blind Watchmaker program.

You can probably see what I'm getting at: the universe cannot possibly have come into being just randomly? There has to be a creator to design it! The complexity of the universe does not agree with these theories!

No, it just you cannot see how it can be produced otherwise. So you invent a reason (god dunnit) it to explain it away. An old saw in evolutionary biology (IIRC, it was George Simpson) goes "evolution is clearer than you are". It not evolutionary theory that wrong; you're imagination just fails you.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Erik: You want evidence for the Oort cloud? Well, it's mostly indirect - comets have to come from somewhere. However, we've found Sedna - a body that looks, walks, and quacks like an Inner Oort Cloud object.

As for coral reefs, that's just silly. I posted a piece about Tahitian reefs 20k+ years old in the old thread. The reef of Eniwetok reef is 1380m thick - a really fast-growing reef grows by ~1cm/year. You do the math.

What, BTW, of the abundant fossil reefs occuring all thru the Phanerozoic geologic column. While some of them, like the gargantuan Rudist reefs of the Cretaceous, were of types growing more quickly than Recent one, in aggregate they certainly represent millions of years of growth. Creationists usually claim these strata where laid down during the flood - did a scribal error reduce the Flood's duration in the Biblical account by seven orders of magnitude or so? Or did God dump the left-over reefs from a thousand previous creations into the Flood, figuring nobody'd notice them among the general carnage?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Gravitational collapse of a cloud of mostly hydrogen dust.

Hydrogen gas, actually. The universe isn't cold enough for hydrogen dust.

Give or take .5 billion years. Generally, it's accepted somewhere around 4.5 billion - 5.5 billion years. I would have to look it up.

About 4.5 Ga is the accepted figure for the Earth's age. The solar system would be 0.5-1 Ga or so older.

 

[Bluemofia]

Has anyone ever heard of the "Bridges without bridge maker" arguement?

A bridge can be naturally built, without people, or intelligent design, and still work well. (waves wash away soft rock under more dense rock. The dense rock becomes a bridge.

 

[El_Machinae]

A Ga is not the sound you make when arguing with TLC. It means "a billion years".

FYI

 

[The Last Conformist]

A Ga is not the sound you make when arguing with TLC. It means "a billion years".

I really explained it, but I suppose repetition can't hurt.

Incidentally, I passed on your mitochondrial degeneration links to some people actually into molecular biology. I'll keep you informed.

 

[ironduck]

Has anyone ever heard of the "Bridges without bridge maker" arguement?

A bridge can be naturally built, without people, or intelligent design, and still work well. (waves wash away soft rock under more dense rock. The dense rock becomes a bridge.

God made the water wash away the rock. He also placed the soft rock there so that it would wash away.

 

[Bluemofia]

Hydrogen gas, actually. The universe isn't cold enough for hydrogen dust.

Whatever. Still, Nebulae mostly containing Hydrogen.

 

[YNCS]

Any theory which includes "and then a miracle happened" is not science

In 1950, Jan H. Oort inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the physical evidence of long-period comets entering the planetary system. This Dutch astronomer, who determined the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy in the 1920s, interpreted comet orbital distribution with only 19 well-measured orbits to study and successfully recognized where these comets came from. Additional gathered data has since confirmed his studies, establishing and expanding our knowledge of the Oort cloud.

 

[El_Machinae]

TLC: Unless this thread has been misnamed, I want Perfection to KO my argument.

Near-perfect starting DNA (Noah) is a great answer as to why our mitochondrial DNA is not presently degraded to the point where it should be after 100,000 years!

 

[The Last Conformist]

Whatever. Still, Nebulae mostly containing Hydrogen.

Hey, I was just correcting what I presume was an honest mistake. No need to get defensive.

Near-perfect starting DNA (Noah) is a great answer as to why our mitochondrial DNA is not presently degraded to the point where it should be after 100,000 years!

Not really. If it degraded substantially in just ten years, there'd be no way humanity could've been around for 4000+ years since the Flood.

 

[El_Machinae]

But it degrades MUCH faster in between years 20-30 than it does between the ages of 0-20, because the ROS scrubbers are more active in younger people.

So the rate of degradation is lower, but there is still degradation. This means, however, if women continue to have children in their 30s - we'll see some damage to the genome over a couple generations.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Women having kids in their 30s isn't exactly news, so if that were so we'd seen major damage long ago.

 

[El_Machinae]

Women having kids in their 30s isn't exactly news, so if that were so we'd seen major damage long ago.

Women consistently having children in their 30s IS fairly new. Where is a line of women who all had children in their 30s? There isn't one, or at least one that is very old.

The children of women who bore in their 30s have a disadvantage to children born of younger women - at least on average you'll find this to be true.

 

[ironduck]

As far as I know it's not new that women have children in their 30s. What is new is the ratio of 'teenager-20s' to '30s' children. If the disadvantaged children are vastly outnumbered the problem is likely to stay small.

However, we actually do have some safety measures put in to counter this effect, namely screening of embryos with possible termination of the pregnancy.

 

[Bluemofia]

God made the water wash away the rock. He also placed the soft rock there so that it would wash away.

Let's hope you are not being serious.