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

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: diablodelmar - please make your answers a little more constructive.

@The others: Either respond to diablodelmar in a civil way, or ignore him. Kindly cease the accusations of trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm still waiting for diablodelmar to provide the reference showing rickets to cause big and strong bones that he promised me.

As regards "Dr." Hovind, he's the guy he claims he's got a divine exemption from the need for building permits. The inanity of his arguments can only be compared with the brazenness of his dishonesty.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@El_Mac: I was most disappointed when I found this in the Discussion section in your link on mitochondrial degeneration:

Taken together, these data suggest that an accumulation of factors in the ovaries of older women leads to a reduced efficiency of mitochondrial respiration, with a subsequent negative effect on embryo development. It is not known whether these factors are genetic; for example, the accumulation of mutations in mitochondrial DNA (Keefe et al., 1995; but see Brenner et al., 1998; Barritt et al., 1999; Perez et al., 2000; Steuerwald et al., 2000), or environmental, for example in the accumulation of reactive oxygen species-induced damage to oocytes within the ovary (Wallace, 1992Go; Shigenaga et al., 1994Go).

I'm afraid I must still consider it unproven that damaging mutations accumulate significantly in the mtDNA of human ova over the lifetime of individuals.

(Further things you'd need demonstrate for your scenario to hold is that significant damage only sets in sometime after sexual maturity, and that natural selection does not weed it out - you'll note that the article states that embryos with poorer mitochondrial respiration are less likely to implant.)

Tangentially, I don't believe you answered my question as to what time-depth you'd ascribe to Adam.

 

[Dr Tiny]

Oocytes are formed as the female develops in her mother's womb. They are formed under anaerobic conditions thus minimising exposure to mutagenic reactive oxygen species (ROS). Some 8-10 million oocytes are formed at this stage and a lot of them are lost during development up until puberty, of the surviving oocytes only some 400 will ever be released by the follicles. Until they are fertilized the oocyte is quiescent ie in a state of suspended animation and the mitochondria are not activly respiring, again minimising exposure to ROS. There are also antibodies to proteins damaged by ROS, suggesting a potential immune reaction against damage oocytes. This has been seen in women with polycystic ovaries. In addition, there is a process called the Bottleneck which will help to weed out damaged mitochondria in cells that have normal and damaged mitochondria in them (though this is still being debated).
Oocytes with damaged mitochondria would be less efficient at forming viable embryos, again helping to weed out damaged mitochondrial lines. There are definately mitochondria associated diseases eg Leigh syndrome, so the process is not 100% efficient. However, how effective are individuals with these syndromes at reproducing?
Finally, there is evidence that mitochondria might be susceptible to recobination from either
1. paternal mitochondria that have leaked into the oocyte
2. recombination with a mitochondrial pseudogene that is maintained in the nucleus
3. recombination between wildtype and mutant mito in the same individual

Obviously number 2 is the most interesting and would be best for mainting mitochondrial genome stability over evolutionary time.

 

[diablodelmar]

I'm still waiting for diablodelmar to provide the reference showing rickets to cause big and strong bones that he promised me.

As regards "Dr." Hovind, he's the guy he claims he's got a divine exemption from the need for building permits. The inanity of his arguments can only be compared with the brazenness of his dishonesty.

Its funny you should mention that, because I finally have an answer for you. And guess what, its from Kent Hovind!

The Neanderthals were human beings that existed before the flood. They are bigger than us because they were living in different conditions with higher pressure and more oxygen, as well as being protected from the harmful rays of the Sun. They were living to ages of 300 years+ and they grew to be enormous sizes and strengths.

 

[diablodelmar]

Can we get this thread closed now? - I think it's pretty obvious that it's nothing more than trolling on diablodelmar's part.

Ohoh so now I get accused of "trolling" just because I'm sticking up for my beliefs.

What is trolling anyway? That sort of vocabulary has never before come into my knowledge. I guess its too cool for me.

 

[diablodelmar]

Moderator Action: diablodelmar - please make your answers a little more constructive.

@The others: Either respond to diablodelmar in a civil way, or ignore him. Kindly cease the accusations of trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Thankyou Ainwood; however, I have one question. What do you mean exactly by more "constructive?" I guess I could probably get several vivid answers from many of my enthusiastic evolutionist friends here so I would like to hear it from you.

 

[diablodelmar]

I swear, you must have a filter on your computer that reparses my posts, because what you just posted above is an insult to my intelligence.

Me: "This thread is not about stellar evolution."
You: "So you admit defeat."

No. Plain and simple, no. If you want to discuss stellar evolution and astronomy, start a thread on it. Right now I'm telling you not to bring up more irrelevant issues like you have been doing for the past month. If I demanded that you explain to me the hierarchical structure of your local church here, you'd probably say that it had little to no relevance to the discussion, but that wouldn't be an admission that your church was wrong, now would it?


In your last five posts on this thread, you have said: (in reverse order)

• Microevolution has never been observed to result in a gain in information (I'm still waiting on a definition of "information", you furging little splot, and until you give me that your argument is valueless)
• The 1st law of thermodynamic applies to the Earth (And the point is?)
• That I'm admitting defeat when I ask you to not bring up astrological topics in a thread about biological evolution (See above)
• Microevolution happens but macroevolution has no evidence for it (seen this before? and what's the line between the two? We say there is none)
• We couldn't have evolved because things tend towards disorder (Snowflakes assemble from water and the Earth is not a closed system. Besides, don't world wars and other chaos prove that we as a species have created a more disorderly world?)

That's a undefined claim, a pointless statement, an ad hominem, a claim whose refutation you have failed to address, and a flat-out inaccurate statement. None two of them are arguing the same topic. PICK A TOPIC AND DISCUSS IT.

In concluding, I'd like to borrow a little something from VRWCAgent...
A clue-by-four. You seem to need some application of it.

lol so this is what Ainwood was talking about! !!!!!!!!!

Furging little splot?????? I'm absolutly cracking my ribs off...

Riky old chap, please calm down, I'm only trying to argue things of which I know something about; I know little about Biology (but that doesn't mean I am automatically wrong), hence I am trying to argue using the criteria of Stellar evolution.

I suggest you follow Ainwood's very useful advice:

Moderator Action: @The others: Either respond to diablodelmar in a civil way, or ignore him. Kindly cease the accusations of trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[skadistic]

It's not that biased. Having watched the DVD I can tell you he also thinks there were fire breathing dinosaurs and that the Egyptians had electricity. If anyone has the time and the stomach for it they can watch the first four at http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php

This guy is a crackpot for the most part but the egyptions did have electrical knowledge. They had some clay pot contraptions that did produce a small current. Not sure what it was used for. They also had lightning rod type things on temples.

 

[diablodelmar]

This guy is a crackpot for the most part but the egyptions did have electrical knowledge. They had some clay pot contraptions that did produce a small current. Not sure what it was used for. They also had lightning rod type things on temples.

Wow? Am I actually hearing someone agree with Kent Hovind?

You will never guess how much of a satisfactory feeling of accomplishment there is from this.

 

[skadistic]

The Neanderthals were human beings that existed before the flood. They are bigger than us because they were living in different conditions with higher pressure and more oxygen, as well as being protected from the harmful rays of the Sun. They were living to ages of 300 years+ and they grew to be enormous sizes and strengths.

That is some of the most insane dribble I've ever seen posted. While entertaining it has no truth in any of it.

 

[diablodelmar]

That is some of the most insane dribble I've ever seen posted. While entertaining it has no truth in any of it.

Maybe thats because you want to believe in evolution. It all has to do with what you want to be true. Just because you dont want that to be true doesn't mean it isn't true, strangely enough.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Trying to define bacteria, archea, or even some fungi in terms of species is ridiculous, given the multitude of ways that they swap DNA.

Only if you stick rigidly to the biological species concept, wherein sexual isolation is the source of genetic cohesion that holds species together. I agree that the promiscuity of genetic exchange between even very distantly related bacteria (and sometimes IIRC even between bacteria and archaea) makes the biological species concept impractical to apply to them, but bacterial species could theoretically exist if there were some other source of cohesion keeping them genetically similar. One possibility is periodic selection events (also called selective sweeps) that purge diversity at all loci within all bacteria of a particular ecological type, without affecting other ecotypes.

 

[ironduck]

All this knowledge of the living conditions for the people before the flood and yet no mention of my rain and rainbow questions..

Let my try to glean an answer though.. 'protected from the harmful rays of the sun' - does that mean the sun was covered by clouds at all times? That would help with the no rainbow parts, of course, but would bring in other issues obviously.

 

[Che Guava]

Only if you stick rigidly to the biological species concept, wherein sexual isolation is the source of genetic cohesion that holds species together. I agree that the promiscuity of genetic exchange between even very distantly related bacteria (and sometimes IIRC even between bacteria and archaea) makes the biological species concept impractical to apply to them, but bacterial species could theoretically exist if there were some other source of cohesion keeping them genetically similar. One possibility is periodic selection events (also called selective sweeps) that purge diversity at all loci within all bacteria of a particular ecological type, without affecting other ecotypes.

Nice post (and actually about biology/evolution!! ) You bring up a good point: the biological species concept is certainly valid except when considering the most basic (or at least distantly related) forms of life, and even then the similarities between populations we would consider species in bacteria tend to hold to the rules we have assigned to them. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the barrier that we set to distinguish species (sexual isolation) is at least somewhat arbitrary, and certainly leaves some wiggle room. With that in mind, I think it would be better to look at micro- and macroevolution as points on the larger continuum of biological evolution, rather than seperate processes that affect each other.

diablodelmar: If you want to discuss the moderators' comments with them, do it via PM. It just wastes space here, and I think they prefer having discussion like that privately.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Its funny you should mention that, because I finally have an answer for you. And guess what, its from Kent Hovind!

I asked for a reference (ie. a link or other pointer to some relevant authority;a medical encyclopedia or similar), not for inanities allegedly from a man whose dedication to truth can only be compared to Baghdad Bob's.

The Neanderthals were human beings that existed before the flood. They are bigger than us because they were living in different conditions with higher pressure and more oxygen, as well as being protected from the harmful rays of the Sun. They were living to ages of 300 years+ and they grew to be enormous sizes and strengths.

To comment only on the obvious lies, Neanderthals were not bigger than us, oxygen levels and atmospheric pressure were not notably higher in the late Pleistocene, and Neanderthals did not live for 300 years or more.


Do yourself a favour and never use Kent Hovind as a source a gain. There's a reason that "hovindism" means nonsense concocted to fool the ignorant and gullible.

 

[Che Guava]

ok, Ironduck, I'll do wht I can!

1) Did water not evaporate and form clouds?

I can't imagine a time on earth when clouds of water vapour weren't around. As for rain as we know it, that might be a different story. I have heard theories that rain may have been more of a rare occurance on earth during certain eras because of different atmospheric pressure and a higher temperature (IIRC, vapour must reach waits dewpoint before precipitation can occur). I don't beleive that these types of condiditons have been present at anytime during humanity's stay on the earth, but who knows?

2) Was it impossible for rainbows to be formed, or was it just that no one had seen any? Because there's no need for rain to form rainbows. Any source of drops will do. A waterfall is a good example. In other words, were the laws of physics different to prevent rainbows from forming, or was it just that no one had actually seen a rainbow for some reason?

It could be that people living in the dry regions of the middle east had never seen a rainbow (at least in thier collective memory). There does need to be a significant amount of water in the air before you get the prism-like effect of a rainbow, and maybe a prolonged drought had put an end to rainbows in the region fora few generations. Had there never ever been a rainbow before that one? I wouldn't think so....

 

[El_Machinae]

Tangentially, I don't believe you answered my question as to what time-depth you'd ascribe to Adam.

I have no idea. I'm sure that with the 'radioactive data' etc, us evilutionists will be able to force-fit the mutation rate into something much longer than 4000 years. I have NO ability to judge the data, though, so I'll just assume I have no leg to stand on - regardless of my opinion. Of course, I could probably just wiki this information, but that would be regurgitation, not understanding. I've heard that the genetic 'Adam' is younger than the genetic 'Eve', by many, many years.

There are also antibodies to proteins damaged by ROS, suggesting a potential immune reaction against damage oocytes.

I think this was the weakness in my argument. I was assuming (in my statements) that the oocytes were released in a step-wise fashion from a set group.

It looks like the healthiest are released, ones that have met some type of selection process (thus reducing the accumulated degeneration below the threshold where internal natural selection can take hold).

I still think that extended efforts to get women to have children in their late 30s (using medical technologies) will lead to children with weaker genomes, unless we select out the weaker eggs better (which is tough, since anything more than visual examination is hard on the eggs) Of course, if we just naturally selected for women bearing children in their late 30s (prohibited reproduction until then) we'd select for longevity genes. Much like we saw with Dr. Michael Rose's work with fruitflies.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Nice post (and actually about biology/evolution!! ) You bring up a good point: the biological species concept is certainly valid except when considering the most basic (or at least distantly related) forms of life, and even then the similarities between populations we would consider species in bacteria tend to hold to the rules we have assigned to them. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the barrier that we set to distinguish species (sexual isolation) is at least somewhat arbitrary, and certainly leaves some wiggle room. With that in mind, I think it would be better to look at micro- and macroevolution as points on the larger continuum of biological evolution, rather than seperate processes that affect each other.

I agree with your broader point about macro and micro evolution being fundamentally the same process, but disagree that sexual isolation is an arbitrary cirterion (checking back I see you said 'somewhat' arbitrary, which I guess I can 'somewhat' agree with). The species is the only level of taxonomy that actually does have some biological basis, unlike phyla, genera, etc, which really are entirely man-made classifications of species with common ancestry.

 

[Che Guava]

I agree with your broader point about macro and micro evolution being fundamentally the same process, but disagree that sexual isolation is an arbitrary cirterion (checking back I see you said 'somewhat' arbitrary, which I guess I can 'somewhat' agree with). The species is the only level of taxonomy that actually does have some biological basis, unlike phyla, genera, etc, which really are entirely man-made classifications of species with common ancestry.

Agree to disagree.?

Don't get me wrong, I do think that species has real biological basis (and yes, much more than phyla, etc), but its one of those sticky issues that seems to have enough many exceptions to look twice. I have the same problem with the definition of 'life'. Is a virus living if it doesn't metabolize? Is a prion living if it 'reproduces'? Just like species, i see life as a blurry line with some grey areas.