The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[CrazyScientist]

Is branching phylogeny related at all to region? Are mice from Austrailia more similar to monkeys from Australia than to monkeys from India?

Not in the way you're talking about. Mice are a monophyletic group, which means they comprise all the descendants of a single common ancestor. Mice in America would probably be more closely related to mice in Mexico than either would be to mice in Japan, but the Japanese, the Mexican, and the American mice would still all be more closely related to each other than any of them would be to any non-mouse anywhere.

 

[Perfection]

Fair enough, that is an adaption that will help it to survive. But isn't this a fairly minor change? Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but if that's the best example of macro evolution you can provide, it just seems a little small, especially since they've known about that bacteria for more than a hundred years. (Isn't that the equivalent of a couple hundred million syears for humans; so should the change's be at least somewhat as dramatic? Going bo evolutionary theory, humans wouldn't even be recognizable a couple hundred million years ago) Also, isn't this just more of this bacteria, already known for being able to eat different things, just adapting well instead of actually mutating? It seems to me that those are two very different things.

Well, it is certainly from a mutation, we can see the genetic change that brought it about. As for weather it qualifies as "macroevolution" really depends on how it is defined, what exactly are you expecting?

 

[Moss]

So how does one classify a "mutation" as it seems they are called, and a "birth-defect."

Both are genetic yet one is considered as a species adapting, and the other is considered a disease...what's the difference?

Are we adapting, or are is it just that we're all born with genetic defects and the ones that are more adaptable are passed on as those are the ones who live?

 

[Perfection]

So how does one classify a "mutation" as it seems they are called, and a "birth-defect."

Both are genetic yet one is considered as a species adapting, and the other is considered a disease...what's the difference?

Are we adapting, or are is it just that we're all born with genetic defects and the ones that are more adaptable are passed on as those are the ones who live?

Birth Defects are just maladaptive conditions present at birth.

Mutations are any genetic change in an orgisim not caused by a recombining event (sex, retroviruses, etc.)

Mutations can cause birth defects, but really they're two different lobes of a Venn diagram.

 

[mdwh]

There are tetrachromats - people with a mutation which lets them see more colours than other humans can (sort of the opposite to colour blindness).

I believe there are various immunities to diseases which are due to genetics.

Though I guess it's hard to tell when these are due to new mutations, or a recombination of existing genes from the parents.

 

[Sophie 378]

Here are some scanned pages from my biochemistry textbook. Copyright Stryer et al 2002. (Biochemistry, 5th International edition, pub. Freeman.)

​

The ability to sense light at different wavelengths and tell them apart: red and green photosensitive retinal pigments. Red and green pigments are 95% similar but have a lambda-max difference of 30nm. So, differences in just 15 amino acids - out of ~300 - produces two quite distinct proteins with distinct functions.

Tomorrow I will post a complicated thing about potassium and sodium channels: action potentials, protein structure and function, and how evolution ties into this. But tonight I'm too tired. I also reserve a grandstand seat for this debate!

 

[Xenocrates]

The study of evolution has not even been around 200 years. Thats nothing compared to how long life has been around. I cant think of any example right now but just because we havent observed any doesnt mean evolution is any less valid.

Actually no, the Greeks advanced many theories regarding evolution, one of which 'we' believe today: epigenesis! C. Darwin was relatively late, even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) had previously supported evolution.

I found this collection of gems from a prominent creationist a few years ago (his name is Kent Hovind and he's a real genius):

‘Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock.
Source: The Tale of Magic Rock Apes http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=71 [May 2003]

I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time. It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other.
Source: Part 1---The Age of the Earth Video @ 0:57:45 [June 2003]

Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....]

Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one.
Source: Truth Radio 5 August 2003 @ 37:50

[.....] I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years [.....]
Source: http://www.uwf.edu/tprewitt/rebuttal1.htm

In 1271 A.D. Marco Polo came back from China and reported that the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades. Now why on earth would Marco Polo say something like that just 700 years ago? Well, I think he probably said that because the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades.
Source: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0700.pdf

If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour.
Source: Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 - a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons circa 1996. http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind6.htm [no longer available]
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. Think about that.
Source: Seminar Transcript circa 1999 [no longer available]’ [33]


Wonderful stuff I think you'll agree!

 

[shadow2k]

I found this collection of gems from a prominent creationist a few years ago (his name is Kent Hovind and he's a real genius):

Wonderful stuff I think you'll agree!

Hovind is a quack. Even most creationists try to distance themselves from him.

 

[Xanikk999]

Actually no, the Greeks advanced many theories regarding evolution, one of which 'we' believe today: epigenesis! C. Darwin was relatively late, even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) had previously supported evolution.

I found this collection of gems from a prominent creationist a few years ago (his name is Kent Hovind and he's a real genius):

‘Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock.
Source: The Tale of Magic Rock Apes http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=71 [May 2003]

I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time. It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other.
Source: Part 1---The Age of the Earth Video @ 0:57:45 [June 2003]

Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....]

Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one.
Source: Truth Radio 5 August 2003 @ 37:50

[.....] I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years [.....]
Source: http://www.uwf.edu/tprewitt/rebuttal1.htm

In 1271 A.D. Marco Polo came back from China and reported that the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades. Now why on earth would Marco Polo say something like that just 700 years ago? Well, I think he probably said that because the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades.
Source: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0700.pdf

If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour.
Source: Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 - a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons circa 1996. http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind6.htm [no longer available]
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. Think about that.
Source: Seminar Transcript circa 1999 [no longer available]’ [33]


Wonderful stuff I think you'll agree!

Traveling at the speed of light plus 60 MPH? This guy is obviously not intellegent.

 

[phoenix_night]

Thread title: .

 

[Elrohir]

Hovind is a quack. Even most creationists try to distance themselves from him.

I wouldn't call him that, but he certainly isn't very credible.

 

[Perfection]

I wouldn't call him that, but he certainly isn't very credible.

Well, he very obviously shows a lack of understanding of basic scientific concepts...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I accept the theory of evolution, because it is based on the efforts of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years. However, I am not exactly sure what all is the evidence to support it. I understand the fossil record, and phylogeny, but is there a list somewhere of all the specific disciplines that have a part in supporting it?

 

[Perfection]

I accept the theory of evolution, because it is based on the efforts of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years. However, I am not exactly sure what all is the evidence to support it. I understand the fossil record, and phylogeny, but is there a list somewhere of all the specific disciplines that have a part in supporting it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Fields_of_science
That may seem a bit broad, but really almost all disciplines have a hand in it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Ok, is there a website that explains exactly how each discipline fits in? Sorry for all the questions, but I do like to know where all of this comes from.

 

[Perfection]

Ok, is there a website that explains exactly how each discipline fits in?

Not that I know of

Sorry for all the questions, but I do like to know where all of this comes from.

Don't apologize for questinos to satisfy your curiosity! That is what science is all about! I'd reccomend taking a look at major science disciplines and thinking about how they connect to biology. For example, for geology, you might think of fossils. Then you should look at how fossils influence biology and how they influence geology.

 

[Dr Tiny]

Ok, is there a website that explains exactly how each discipline fits in? Sorry for all the questions, but I do like to know where all of this comes from.

A pretty good website to get started is

http://talkorigins.org/

There are lots more and I would recomend reading as many different sources as possible.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Fair enough, that is an adaption that will help it to survive. But isn't this a fairly minor change?

You are aware, are you, that in standard evolutionary biology "macro" changes are assumed to play a rather minor part in evolution? Most big changes are taken in innumerable small steps over the generations (which, among other things, implies that the basic body shapes of higher animals, the so-called Baupläne, should be strongly conserved even when size, proportions, and lifestyle are radically changed, which appears to be the case).

The notion that big changes from generation to generation play an important part in the history of life is known as "saltationism" (from Latin saltare "to jump"). It's an interesting idea, but one with little evidence to back it up.

If you want a successful example of a "macro" change, however, you might consider HeLa cells.

 

[Abaddon]

Hey perf, theres a few typos etc in your opening post- would be nice if they were corrected seen as the opening post is kinda important.

just my 2 cents

 

[Sidhe]

[.....] I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years [.....]
Source: http://www.uwf.edu/tprewitt/rebuttal1.htm

Anyone who uses IQ as a measure of intelligence is not very intelligent either Does anyone think IQ actually represents intelligence at all in any way shape or form except MENSA. I think this is an organisation that really brings home the idea that I would never join any club that would have me as a member

Interesting links though