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

[The Last Conformist]

I've heard that the genetic 'Adam' is younger than the genetic 'Eve', by many, many years.

If you're refering to mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, Wiki gives them dates of about 150 kya and 60-90 kya, respectively. The precise numbers should be taken with considerable amounts of salt, but the that Eve lived long before Adam is more than likely.

 

[skadistic]

Could the later emergance of Adam be posible because of a great decline in the number of humans alive? Like a mass killing by virus or world wide disaster?

 

[Dr Tiny]

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.



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.

I don't know if there would be weaker genomes due to maternal age, but there are definate syndromes (eg Down's syndrome) that positivily correlate with maternal age.

I am certainly not an expert in this area, I research diabetes and ion channel function. IT has been very interesting researching this stuff though, I knew very little about mitochondria before this discussion and now I think I have an idea for a long essay topic for my undergrad tutees

 

[The Last Conformist]

Could the later emergance of Adam be posible because of a great decline in the number of humans alive? Like a mass killing by virus or world wide disaster?

That would tend to have the same effect on the female lines as the male ones.

The most natural explanation is that a lower percentage of males than females contribute to the genepool of the next generation, ie. some men impregnate more than their "share" of women, while others never impregrnate any, while women have more equal reproductive success. You can probably think of a number of reasons why this might be the case.

 

[ironduck]

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?

So you're proposing an earth where all the vapourised water is returned as fog? I suppose it's possible..

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....

True, but that does restrict people to only living in dry region if no one should never have seen a rainbow (or your above scenario; no rain at all). Also it would mean that no water falls existed near any humans.

One thing I'm not sure of is how widespread humanity was around the earth before the flood. Do the creationist assume the entire earth was populated, or that it was only the middle east region? Africa has some seriously big waterfalls for instance. And if I remember correctly they say that all the fossils of humans we find are pre-flood ones, and we have found those fossils in many places. On the other hand, some creationists say there were no mountains before the flood, so perhaps there were no steep cliffs and thereby no real waterfalls.. the questions, the questions.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

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

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

It's not meant to be funny. It's meant to be undefined, just like your comment on "information". As far as I'm aware, neither 'to furge' nor 'splot' are words with a defined meaning, and all you have for them is a vague context. By the way, you never answered this post, where I 'proved' that 'information' can arise.

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.

Once again you completely failed to actually provide an answer or anything of substance on a single point of discussion, while again bringing up something irrelevant to the thread.

Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism.

please make your answers a little more constructive.

I asked for a reference (ie. a link or other pointer to some relevant authority;a medical encyclopedia or similar),

If you want to discuss stellar evolution and astronomy, start a thread on it.

Try to understand this: From our point of view, you are steadily bringing up new subjects, quoting a source whose credibility we have great issues with, and refusing to place topics under serious discussion. This makes debate with you somewhat worthless. This in turn means that people will not bother to discuss your perceived inanities.

 

[Che Guava]

So you're proposing an earth where all the vapourised water is returned as fog? I suppose it's possible..

I believe it is. Not only that, but many creationists point to verses in genesis that suggest the world was once only moistened by fog....

True, but that does restrict people to only living in dry region if no one should never have seen a rainbow (or your above scenario; no rain at all). Also it would mean that no water falls existed near any humans.

First of all, I don't beleive that a global flood killed off nearly all of humankind. If there is any truth to the story (IMHO), it would be that the people of Noah inhabited a dry environment and didn't regularly come across rainbows, except after major percipitations, like one that would trigger a large flood.

One thing I'm not sure of is how widespread humanity was around the earth before the flood. Do the creationist assume the entire earth was populated, or that it was only the middle east region? Africa has some seriously big waterfalls for instance. And if I remember correctly they say that all the fossils of humans we find are pre-flood ones, and we have found those fossils in many places. On the other hand, some creationists say there were no mountains before the flood, so perhaps there were no steep cliffs and thereby no real waterfalls.. the questions, the questions.

Questions I don't really care to answer, since I'm not a young-earth theorist. I could beleive that the early isrealites (or thier pre-cursors) might have beleived that they were the only ones on earth if they had had no contact with other people, and therefore honestly beleived that humanity had ben all but wiped out by a large flood. But I'm quite certain if this event did occur, there were other people around....

 

[ironduck]

Questions I don't really care to answer, since I'm not a young-earth theorist.

Oh, well I thought that was the whole point That you were trying to argue on their terms..

It is of course very plausible that people living in a dry middle eastern place without major waterfalls and no rain to speak of, but with regular floodings would be in such a position as to think this was how things were. Some areas along the Tigris, Eufrates, and Nile fulfill these criteria. On the other hand, the civilizations there were quite advanced, there was travel and cultural exchanges going on, etc. So even in those societies a global flood myth as well as the rain/rainbow issue must have seemed more mythological than realistic long before the story was eventually written down.

 

[diablodelmar]

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.


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.

why dont you just ignore me then because that is what I believe in. You got a problem with that, then you shutup.

 

[Bluemofia]

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.

Ok, taking your annoying "prove all" arguements, prove that they lived for 300+ years. Prove that the oxygen levels and air pressures were higher. Prove the Genisis Flood existed (without using the bible, or myths)

why dont you just ignore me then because that is what I believe in. You got a problem with that, then you shutup.

Admiting defeat? Because you just avoided the question, and did not try to deny the arguement he proposed.

 

[ainwood]

why dont you just ignore me then because that is what I believe in. You got a problem with that, then you shutup.

Moderator Action: Well, this certainly isn't an example of something 'constructive'.

In terms of 'constructive' content, I was suggesting that you stop with the one liners, and address the questions asked of you, providing a reasoned analysis supported by evidence. It is clear that your evasion of the questions is causing a lot of frustrations for other posters.

At others: If you don't think the dialog is reasonable or worth your time, I suggest that you don't engage in it. Don't vent your frustrations by flaming.

 

[carlosMM]

CarlosMM, I have no idea what you are talking about, since I have tried to answer as many of your questions that I have noticed (I can't read entire threads: I just came to this one).

I never asked you to read many threads - just this one!

Answer the many questions asked, please.

Also, what are you on? How do you think you know I got this question from my "secret DVD"??? Don't try and guess things that you really know little about. Stick with patenteotiolothingy.

I was sticking it to you for constantly whining about your DVDs, but never ever giving titles etc for them.

You make claims, ignore replies, and never give sources. Very poor debating behaviour.

Please explain to me how the evolutionary theory is somehow exempt from being affected by the laws of thermodynamics

Oh but it isn't

But, your own admission that you are clueless about thermodynamics (open and closed systems) shows that my explanation would fall on deaf ears, as ususal

(which, judging by your pitiful answer, you know relativly little regarding, or else you are simply embarrased by the truth).

most idiotic ad hominem - please get yourself some manners.

 

[diablodelmar]

Ok I get it. I know where I'm not wanted. Once again my lack of experience prevents me from getting my point across.

Ainwood, I realise I may not be answering questions properly, however I feel similarly when it comes to my previous questions. No-one seems to want to answer me, therefore I see no reason why I should answer them.

I have wasted far too much time (trying to) debating evolution. I think its time I left you all. Maybe once I'm a famous Patentologist like carlosMM I will come back.

Oh and carlos, I am most certainly not clueless about open and closed systems.

 

[The Last Conformist]

why dont you just ignore me then because that is what I believe in. You got a problem with that, then you shutup.

You're free to believe in lies as transparent as Hovind's if you like - the problem arises when you try to use his assertions as arguments in a serious discussion. If you bring manifestly daft claims into a debate, they'll get savaged regardless if whether they're your most cherished beliefs or not. If you don't want your fantasy world disturbed, don't try to argue for its validity.

I'll further note the contradiction in your claims that Neanderhtals were a) normal moderns suffering from rickets, and b) antediluvians of exceptional size and strength.

 

[carlosMM]

Oh and carlos, I am most certainly not clueless about open and closed systems.

yeah, you read what they are a few minutes ago in this thread

otherwise, why didn't you answer the question before?
come on, try to give answers, not beliefs! Then, we can have a fruitful discussion!

so, what is a 'kind'?
what is, by your dfinition, 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Ok I get it. I know where I'm not wanted. Once again my lack of experience prevents me from getting my point across.

Your lack of facts, more like. Or your lack of a point that you can get across.

I have wasted far too much time (trying to) debating evolution. I think its time I left you all. Maybe once I'm a famous Patentologist like carlosMM I will come back.

Post 107 and 108 of this thread went like this:
diablodelmar: Tell me your versions of the laws of thermodynamics.
carlosMM: Why should I, when you haven't answered a single question put to you?
You haven't tried at all to debate evolution, as is evidenced by two moderator warnings. I've been waiting all the way since the previous thread for you to answer what constitutes "information", for example, and your record on other questions is equally atrocious.

Oh and carlos, I am most certainly not clueless about open and closed systems.

Yes, you are, and you admitted it yourself.


You have several threads of material awaiting you. Pick a few posts at random with claims you think are wrong and debate them. You're welcome to find the weakest arguments in about 2300 posts.
How do you answer ainwood's contention that you are not being constructive? Point to a post where you think you're being constructive, and we'll be happy to debate it.

I'll further note the contradiction in your claims that Neanderhtals were a) normal moderns suffering from rickets, and b) antediluvians of exceptional size and strength.

I feel that I am required to snigger.
*sniggers*

 

[Samson]

Ainwood, I realise I may not be answering questions properly, however I feel similarly when it comes to my previous questions. No-one seems to want to answer me, therefore I see no reason why I should answer them.

I have seen some of your questions answered here, and I have tried myself. Some are hard to answer (eg. "Tell me your versions of the laws of thermodynamics") and some are only "sort of" answered ("Tell my why there are no reefs older that 4000 years" "There are").

It is up to you, and if you are leaving the thread then fair enough. But I would like to suggest that if you are really interested in getting your questions answered you phrase them a little like this;

Instead of;

Also, explain something similar: Comets can only last 10,000 years becasue they lose everything when they go so fast. Yet noone knows how comets form either, noone has seen them form. Once again, we can't prove what we don't know that isn't true.

I would have phrased it more like (figures and links made up);

The rate of loss of material from a comet is 10 kg/year as deterimined by technique X (www.example.com). As the maximum mass we have observed is 100 tonnes they should not be able to last more than 10,000 years. The current theory on comet formation (www.example.com/origin) predicts a much lower rate of formation. How do you explain that we still have comets?

 

[sanabas]

Well, one of the creationists in the previous threads said there were wooly mammoths at the time of the flood. So I should think they must've been on the ark. But he never replied to that. Nor to the whole arctic animals thing. Of course, once you believe the ark story is real the amount of questions that emerge are just neverending unless you pull the 'god did it' card.

I don't think that one is massively hard to solve. 4 options: First, that creationist was wrong, and there was just one protoelephant kind on the ark. Second: It was bucketing down for almost 6 weeks. Building a large, crude, fridge that worked by evaporative cooling shouldn't be that big a technical challenge, as water supply isn't a problem. If Australians living in 40+ degree (104+ for the celsius challenged) weather could keep their beers cold without electricity, I'm sure Noah could manage it. Third: How much body heat & manure for burning would the ark have? Take the ark to cooler latitudes to keep the penguins & polar bears happy, and warm some of the interior for the rest. Fourth: Most cold weather animals have long hair/fur for heat retention. So shave them. Imagine a wooly mammoth with a full-body mohawk.

Ainwood, I realise I may not be answering questions properly, however I feel similarly when it comes to my previous questions. No-one seems to want to answer me, therefore I see no reason why I should answer them.

Which of your questions have gone unanswered? Please point me to them, and I'll try and answer them. I remember a couple that were answered in depth, such as "Why are there no coral reefs older than 4000 years?" and "Why have we never observed star formation?" Answered with "There are" and "We have", along with a lot of evidence for both. You answered a few posts around my last one, in which I asked you some serious questions about what is a kind, and how I can work out which kind an animal or plant belongs to. Also about how quick a change has to be to be a macroevolution. I'd appreciate some answers to those questions.

The post is #163 in this thread, and here's a link direct to it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4021726&postcount=163

 

[ironduck]

I don't think that one is massively hard to solve. 4 options: First, that creationist was wrong, and there was just one protoelephant kind on the ark. Second: It was bucketing down for almost 6 weeks. Building a large, crude, fridge that worked by evaporative cooling shouldn't be that big a technical challenge, as water supply isn't a problem. If Australians living in 40+ degree (104+ for the celsius challenged) weather could keep their beers cold without electricity, I'm sure Noah could manage it. Third: How much body heat & manure for burning would the ark have? Take the ark to cooler latitudes to keep the penguins & polar bears happy, and warm some of the interior for the rest. Fourth: Most cold weather animals have long hair/fur for heat retention. So shave them. Imagine a wooly mammoth with a full-body mohawk.

Hmm.. you raise valid points. Now I'm considering drawing a wooly mammoth with such a mohawk, I rather like the image in my mind.. maybe I could dye the mohawk for added effect. Does anyone know what colour skin a mammoth had?

There's still one unsolved problem though: How did the cold weather animals get to Noah's ark in the first place?

 

[sanabas]

Hmm.. you raise valid points. Now I'm considering drawing a wooly mammoth with such a mohawk, I rather like the image in my mind.. maybe I could dye the mohawk for added effect. Does anyone know what colour skin a mammoth had?

Haven't a clue. I'd guess similar to what elephants have today. But it is a good image.

There's still one unsolved problem though: How did the cold weather animals get to Noah's ark in the first place?

I don't have a bible handy, so I can't remember what it has to say about where it was built/when it was floated. But why couldn't the cold weather animals move to high ground, and have the ark come and pick them up? That interpretation would actually suggest that either the ark was built in Australia, or that all of our indigenous animals were widespread pre-flood. Because we don't have much high ground to speak of, they wouldn't have been able to wait for the ark to show up.

*edit*Actually, I think that's the much harder question to answer. The ark beached on Mt Ararat, yeah? How did all the animals get back to their current homes, without appearing elsewhere?*/edit*