The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Mrogreturns]

edit: Mrog beat me to it and said it better.

Nah- I didn't use fancy words like cha.. clad...cladastami.. er that thing you said.

 

[carlosMM]

@CarlosMM- thamnks for your patience, and I hope I can impose on you a bit further. Its possible that I phrased the question poorly (I am way out of my field here!). So, if I may, I'll try asking again- it may or may not make any difference. What I meant was that if you consider the fossil record and interpret it in an evolutionary sense then it allows you to make inferences about the degree of relatedness between exisiting animals. These inferences can then be checked by examining the genetic relationships amoung exisitng animals. I underdtand that when this is done there is a high degree of aggreement between the fossil and genetic evidence. It is the probablity of that degree of concordance that I am interested in.

Cheers!

oh, alright! I thought you were talking about the stuff where they try to compute the probability of todays related animals having evolved - or not, thus not being related.

alright, I can't give you a source now, but I an assure you that the chances for an accidental concordance of genetic relations and morphological evidence are extremely low.

This means: genetically close = closely related with a very high significance and correlation!

I guess people will here operate with the customary 0.1% margin of error for denial of the starting hypothesis. And that in mayn repeat cases! So even if one was chance, the others would be 0,1*0,1*0,1.... etc.....

 

[Mrogreturns]

Thanks Carlos and Perfection- If you could reccomend any good keywords for a relevant literature search (I can access just about any journal) that would be great and I'll post the results as an edit to this post (to hide the spam!)

 

[carlosMM]

hm, you know what, I'll ask my boss tomorrow and he will give me more than keywords - most probably I'll end up with two or three authors names!

 

[Perfection]

Nah- I didn't use fancy words like cha.. clad...cladastami.. er that thing you said.

Cladistics is a pretty simple word, it just means classifying organisms based on clades. Clades are just all the organisms that share a common ancestor. A good example of a clade is that containing mammels birds and reptiles. Since they all that come from a single reptilian ancestor, they are a clade. However just repitles is not, because the common ancestor of all reptiles is also the common ancestor for mammels and birds.

 

[carlosMM]

Cladistics is a pretty simple word, it just means classifying organisms based on clades. Clades are just all the organisms that share a common ancestor. A good example of a clade is that containing mammels birds and reptiles. Since they all that come from a single reptilian ancestor, they are a clade. However just reptiles is not, because the common ancestor of all reptiles is also the common ancestor for mammels and birds.

actually, he is simplifying here: clades containing all descendents (monotremes, theropoda and dinosauria (both including bird)) and no others are called monophyletic clades. Only these have any proper use but colloquially.
Those lacking some descendants ('reptiles', 'non-avian dinosaurs') are called paraphyletic and can be a good shorthand. They are usually put in ''s to make the distinction clear!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[ybbor]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, the panda's thumb is proof of Darwinism. Imperfect design proves that there is no intelligent agent at work. The giant panda is an endangered species that lives in the wilds of china and Nepal eating stems, leaves, and roots of the bamboo plant. Opposable thumbs (as seen in humans and apes) are useful for grasping. Gould says that the Panda's 'thumb' (which it uses to strip leaves of the bamboo plant) is not a true 'thumb' at all. It’s a wrist bone that has been enlarged and given a set of muscles to do something similar. He says the panda's evolutionary history rules out the "engineer's best solution." to this problem. Gould says that the Panda's 'true thumb' was already committed to another role- since it's on the front paw of an animal that walks on all four feet. So the Panda had to use whatever parts were available to it, and settle for an "enlarged wrist bone" a clumsy, but still workable solution. The existence of 'odd arrangements' and 'funny solutions' shows blind natural process at work, rather than an "intelligent agent." or so the Darwinists claim.

There are 3 objections with this illustration. A) Just because the thumb doesn’t fit Gould's idea of what a thumb should be, how can he claim it wasn't designed? B) There's a logical problem. Essentially Gould's argument goes like this:

1) If there is an intelligent agent he would be able to make features that are pleasing to a human observer
2) If he were able to he would have done so.
3) A practical example is that he would have given the panda a real thumb
4) Pandas do not have a real thumb
5) Therefore an intelligent agent did not make the panda's thumb
6) Darwinism, the only alternative produced the Panda's thumb

2 is a theological proposition for which you have no evidence
3is another theological proposition
5 is not warranted by the evidence
6 is not necessarily true

The story also has a practical problem, is the panda's thumb a dumb design? The Encyclopedia Americana calls it a "special adaptation" and notes that it "enables the panda to eat bamboo efficiently..." and allows it to "handle stems with great dexterity." This story has too many holes in it to prove much of anything

 

[Perfection]

Uh, most mutations are lethal. Most survivable mutations are indifferent.

You want to give me a source for that?

See, here's the thing, the animals don't change at all. It's just that a different subset of them survives to adulthood and breeds. If the conditions change back, so will the ratios.

See, that's where mutations come into play

Species can adapt on an ad hoc basis to minor variations in climate and ecosystem without suffering fundamental alterations. Moths can change coloration to hide better, finches can alter beak size to drill deeper for burrowing bugs or crack tougher nuts. At the end of the day(epoch) they're still moths, and they're still finches.

However, if the variations are caused by mutations then they can change thier fundamental nature, and I think I have given much credence beneficial mutations.

You SAY that small variations add up over time to major changes, but you don't support it. Sure, it sounds logical, but all it is is an inference.

There is plenty of support for that idea in the smaller variations in the fossil record leading up to large ones

I have seen nothing that convinces me that unguided natural selection and mutation over time will result in a branching of kinds. I have never doubted that animals reproduce within their own kind, or that they vary while doing so, and if it makes you happy to call speciation within kind evolution, then call me an evolutionist.

What the hell is a kind? If you'd call a clade a kind, then it would work perfectly with evolution.

What happens to a lizard embreyo if its Hox genes for limbs are suppressed to the max? Does it lose its hip, scalpula, and collarbone as well and hatch as a snake, or is it merely born a legless cripple? How did the many steps from lizard to snake survive their helpless condition as stubby-legged floppers? How on earth did they manage to survive a single generation, let alone many? How could it happen all at once, which it must have for snake survival to have any credence, without intelligent guidance?

Well since snakes didn't come from the lizard evolutionary line, I'll amend your post so we are talking about Ophiosaurs (legless lizards). The method is actually pretty striaghtforward, the ecological role the lizard plays makes slithering a benefical trait over walking, over time the lizard begins to take its snake-like traits, after a while the legs become useless and so are selected against evntually causing their dissapearance. You should know from experience that no evolutionist says that it occurs overnight as you seem to imply.

 

[Perfection]

There are 3 objections with this illustration. A) Just because the thumb doesn’t fit Gould's idea of what a thumb should be, how can he claim it wasn't designed? B) There's a logical problem. Essentially Gould's argument goes like this:

1) If there is an intelligent agent he would be able to make features that are pleasing to a human observer
2) If he were able to he would have done so.
3) A practical example is that he would have given the panda a real thumb
4) Pandas do not have a real thumb
5) Therefore an intelligent agent did not make the panda's thumb
6) Darwinism, the only alternative produced the Panda's thumb


2 is a theological proposition for which you have no evidence
3is another theological proposition
5 is not warranted by the evidence
6 is not necessarily true

The story also has a practical problem, is the panda's thumb a dumb design? The Encyclopedia Americana calls it a "special adaptation" and notes that it "enables the panda to eat bamboo efficiently..." and allows it to "handle stems with great dexterity." This story has too many holes in it to prove much of anything

1. Gould didn't use that as proof of Darwinism, rather as disproof of Paley's philosophies of Natural Theology and those who continue with its ideas. Paley stated that god produced all animals to be perfectly adapted within their environment.
2. The panda thumb does not have the dexterity of a human thumb as it has less joints. It is clearly an inferior adaptation to having a true thumb, it provides an example of the way life is Jury-rigged. While it does allow much more dexterity as you elude to in your encyclopedia reference, it would be clearly surpassed by the presence of a true thumb.

 

[carlosMM]

I have seen nothing that convinces me that unguided natural selection and mutation over time will result in a branching of kinds. I have never doubted that animals reproduce within their own kind, or that they vary while doing so, and if it makes you happy to call speciation within kind evolution, then call me an evolutionist.

ah, don't bring that absurd 'kind' thing up again! We've been over it repeatedly, and each time you either left the discussion or ended up giving a definition that was crap, then altering it until it nicely fit 'species'

What happens to a lizard embreyo if its Hox genes for limbs are suppressed to the max?

learned a new word?

Does it lose its hip, scalpula, and collarbone as well and hatch as a snake, or is it merely born a legless cripple? How did the many steps from lizard to snake survive their helpless condition as stubby-legged floppers? How on earth did they manage to survive a single generation, let alone many? How could it happen all at once, which it must have for snake survival to have any credence, without intelligent guidance?

See, it is quite easy: They didn't lose legs overnight - Wham-Bam, legs gone, shoulder girdle gone, hips gone - there's your snake!
Rather, there were lizard-like animals with loger legs and with shorter legs. Now, those with shorter legs obviously had a slight disadvantage where fast unning was an advantage. But if they lived e.g. in an environment where they'd have to swim quite often, or where there'd be an advantage in being able to slide between little rocks and into tight crevices, shorter legs wouldn't hinder them. Rather, they'd be slightly better off by just NOT using the legs and instead undulating the body. This is a very basic mechanism to propel the body forward, and it works just fine without legs, too - legs just make you go faster. So, let's say the legs do not really give them any advantage, maybe even a disadvantage - they get stuck more easily. So each mutation that reduces the amount of energy spent on growing legs and reduces the likelyhood to get stuck is beneficial. Each new reduction will be slightly better off than the previous version.
In time, the same then applies to the hips and the shoulder girdle. If they have no use, why waste energy on them?

 

[ybbor]

1. Gould didn't use that as proof of Darwinism, rather as disproof of Paley's philosophies of Natural Theology and those who continue with its ideas. Paley stated that god produced all animals to be perfectly adapted within their environment.
2. The panda thumb does not have the dexterity of a human thumb as it has less joints. It is clearly an inferior adaptation to having a true thumb, it provides an example of the way life is Jury-rigged. While it does allow much more dexterity as you elude to in your encyclopedia reference, it would be clearly surpassed by the presence of a true thumb.

1)well the Panda seems to be perfectly adapted within it's enviornment
2)maybe the extra joint would be needed/used maybe it would rater have a stiff strucural bone than a weaker jointed thumb

 

[The Last Conformist]

1)well the Panda seems to be perfectly adapted within it's enviornment

Care to expand on that? What do we mean with "perfectly adapted"?

 

[carlosMM]

1)well the Panda seems to be perfectly adapted within it's enviornment
2)maybe the extra joint would be needed/used maybe it would rater have a stiff strucural bone than a weaker jointed thumb

maybe you have never seen a Panda try to grab Bamboo shoots with it 'thumb'?

I have - and I cna tell you a human-style multi-jointed thing would be far more useful.

 

[Perfection]

And might I mention that other vestigial features have been found:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vestigial_features

This provides much evidence against the idea of perfect adaptation by god. Organisms are Jury-rigged consistant with evolutionary thoery and inconsistant with the philosophies of most creationists.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[Perfection]

carlos, a kind is what it is. Much like a famous SC justice once said of pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Moths are a kind. Butterflies are another kind. Ants are a kind. Sunflowers are a kind. Goldfish and carp are a kind. Pumpkins and squashes are members of the guord kind. That's as specific as it gets. Deal with it.

So basicly we all have to go by your arbitrary definition? I'm sorry but I'm not going to deal with that.

As far as Hox genes go, I brought them up last year, apparently in a thread you didn't enter, or have chosen to forget. Feh, probably in this one if you go back far enough.

Not in this thread, you're welcome to bring them up if you like

As far as the snakes go, you're telling us that they started out as legged lizards (so far we're on the same page) and then slowly lost the legs, and without a reticulated vertebra, managed to undulate while the stubs were fading away? Then, after millennia of evolution, their hips and collarbones made way for vertebra reticulation to occur?

What's a "reticulated vertebra" google doesn't give me a single hit for it?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q="reticulated+vertebra"

Now, while all of this was going on, and they were practically immobile, how did they avoid extinction at the jaws and claws of fish, insectile, and really bored lizard predation? You got any fossils to back this up? Fossils that indicate a range of motion that doesn't equate with death at the jaws and claws of contemporary predators? Or benign treatment by same?

Umm, the elongation and changing of the muculature occured before they lost their limbs, this is clearly possible with reptiles as it's been seen in certain lizards

My Google efforts have come up with a lot of shrugged shoulders. The recent discovery of Haasiophis terrasanctus puts the kibosh on the 'it came from out of the sea' theory, and a recent genetic survey of 64 species representing all 19 lizard families and 17 of the 25 snake families only managed to prove that snakes didn't come from mosasaurs, the supposed pre-cursors to monitor lizards, also effectively ruling out the sea origin theory. But it also failed to find any modern relatives to the snake in a genetic sense. So, what, they just appeared out of nowhere? That's what the evidence says. Funny, a kind appearing out of nowhere like that (yeah, snakes are another kind). Almost as if by design. Especially when you consider that all other ancient snakes were as snake-like as modern snakes, with no primitive features.

So now snakes are an entire kind, I must say your kind defintions get more and more arbitrary. Now, the genetic tests you reference do show that snake evolution is still in debate, however there is evidence that they did evolve (limb vestiges). Now there are quite a few lizards that take up a near serpentine form, mosasaurs were not the only ones. There is much evidence (including genetic) that they came from reptiles, which reptiles is still up for debate but the lack on consensus on which reptile doesn't mean no reptile.

It's no surprise that snake origin is in doubt, they not even sure where reptiles came from in the first place...
I suppose snakes came directly from amphibians and bypassed reptiles completely is what they'll tell us next.

See, all you're doing is mocking the scientific establishment for not demonstrating conclusively which amphibian it came from. We've pinned down what the roughly the ancestor it is but with an incomplete fossil record it is often difficult to discern how it exactly occured. There is much evidence it came from an amphibian, which particular family is up for question. The key is even though the evolutionary chart is far from perfect there is much credence to its progressions. While it's a fact that a few of the progressions are debated on which organism within a particular group is most closey related to the origin, the general lines are well evidenced.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[Perfection]

Since kind is my aggregation of species, my definition of kind is the only correct one, so deal.

Oh please, you have no critieria other then "calling it as you see it". That's about as useless as a hind whale leg!

As far as bringing up Hox genes goes, I just did here,

You brought 'em up but you didn' say anything about them.

and I know I have in the past. If search is ever enabled, you can see for yourself.

So do you not remember your arguements or reasoning?

'Reticulated' was the wrong word, sorry. I was thining of rectilinear, a form of motion that snakes use that requires unfused vertebrae. Undulation and sidewinding also require great freedom of motion. The idea that animals with literally stiff necks could do these things is one I find dubious at best.

Well that's pretty easy to explain, rectiliearity came first.

You have proof of this? A fossil lineage? Bring it forth! All the fossils of 'snake ancestors' I've seen have modern snake characteristics, or are clearly reptiles.

Ummm all snakes are clearly reptiles. Anywho the lizards I allude to are here

http://www.geocities.com/hartwig_dellmour/Tetradactylus_1985.html

They're not particularly related to snake ancestors, but it does show the capacity for legged lizards to behave in snake-like ways.

Just a follow up on your genetic evolution article after some further research: It shows how there was two competing theories and it just looks like one is starting to take hold.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0211_040211_snakeevolution.html#main

The 'limb vestiges' are just poorly suppressed Hox genes, caused by crossing over and other genetic drift. Snakes are the way they because that's how they started out, with fully suppressed Hox genes. As time went by, the suppression mutated slightly, and now they express the limbs a teensy bit, that's all.

By argueing that way you'd have to admit that evolution can come up with new structures will you admit that?

Whimper and bleat all you want to about kinds, it's not going to change the fact that a kind is what it is. I don't know if frog and toads are one kind, or if there's enough differences to call them seperate kinds for example, but if I looked at the issue hard enough, I could tell you in short order. 'Kind' doesn't have a neat and tidy definition, any more than species does.

Species may not have a neat and tidy definition, but at least it has one. When I hear kind I have no idea what you are talking about, I can't discern anything you are saying!

For the sake of argument, I'm willing to grant that God hatched the first snakes out of lizard eggs, but it could have been any lizards at all. Same goes for mammals and birds. The point is, no clear path from one to the other can be proven, nor can the near-hits be shown to have any more meaning than that.

So you accept all evolution past the initial creation of snakes?

As for a reptiles to mammels I really suggest you look at that lineage, because it is most impressive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
Is this not a clear path?

Birds are a bit less preserved, but below the section on mammels is a little blurb about birds that provides some transitions.

You have a guess that fits the facts you have, but assumes facts not in evidence. I have an explanation that fits the first, and has no need of the second.

What facts does it assume?

 

[carlosMM]

carlos, a kind is what it is. Much like a famous SC justice once said of pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Moths are a kind. Butterflies are another kind. Ants are a kind. Sunflowers are a kind. Goldfish and carp are a kind. Pumpkins and squashes are members of the guord kind. That's as specific as it gets. Deal with it.

Super! Basically, you tell me that you can't define the basis of your argumentation!

As far as Hox genes go, I brought them up last year, apparently in a thread you didn't enter, or have chosen to forget. Feh, probably in this one if you go back far enough. Your smarmy attitude and 'clever' little jabs at my intellect are frankly kind of sad. It's like watching a midget try to kick a giant in the shins. I, and everyone else here, we are all fully aware that you consider anyone who doesn't slavishly accept every word from an evolutionist's mouth as Gospel as the most beknighted of backward and ignorant savages. We get it. You think you're smarter than us, and you have the word of a bunch of fellow evolutionists to support your belief.

I AM smarter than you, if thta's what you want to hear - maybe not IQ wise, but I at least try to use logic when discussing sciecne. See you comment on what a kind is just above......

As far as the snakes go, you're telling us that they started out as legged lizards (so far we're on the same page) and then slowly lost the legs, and without a reticulated vertebra, managed to undulate while the stubs were fading away?

yes! check on how lizards walk - they undulate the body and use the legs to lenghten the leverage! Thsu walk totally different from mammals.

Then, after millennia of evolution, their hips and collarbones made way for vertebra reticulation to occur?

my books on snakesdo not mention a term 'vertebra reticulation' - what's it supposed to mean?

The fact that snakes are a LOT more flexible today and hae an hgue number of specializations in the vertebral column doesn't mean that ANCESTRAL snakes were, too! Yes, snakes developed a lot of vertebral specializations (check out: Holman, J.a. (2000): Snakes of Noth America - Indiana University Press, chapter 1), e.g. the hypapophysis, but most often the boidae, being rather primitive, lack these.

Now, while all of this was going on, and they were practically immobile, how did they avoid extinction at the jaws and claws of fish, insectile, and really bored lizard predation?

They were not immobile - you totally lack understanding of basic amnitoe locomotion! Undulation goes back to the first fishes, early Agnathes.

You got any fossils to back this up? Fossils that indicate a range of motion that doesn't equate with death at the jaws and claws of contemporary predators? Or benign treatment by same?

Snakes show up rather suddenly in the fossil record, but there are quite a number of primitive species. I'd recommend you get a book on fossil snakes and look for yourself, as the only book I have handy atm is the one I named above - and snakes made it to NA rather late, only in the Late Cretaceous.
you may find this interesting:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/snake.html

Some modern boa snakes still have vestigial legs,

hehehehehe

more:
http://www.vertpaleo.org/jvp/22-104-109.html
http://www.karencarr.com/gallery_legged_snake.html
and a few PDFs....
http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2003_A01_JCR-FE/CG2003_A01_JCR-FE_uk.pdf
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/CoatesRuta2000Snakes.pdf - heretic theories about snake origin (but still within the ToE )
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0272-4634&volume=022&issue=01&page=0104

enough?

My Google efforts have come up with a lot of shrugged shoulders. The recent discovery of Haasiophis terrasanctus puts the kibosh on the 'it came from out of the sea' theory, and a recent genetic survey of 64 species representing all 19 lizard families and 17 of the 25 snake families only managed to prove that snakes didn't come from mosasaurs, the supposed pre-cursors to monitor lizards, also effectively ruling out the sea origin theory. But it also failed to find any modern relatives to the snake in a genetic sense.

sorry to say, but just because modern snakes do not by their genes tell which modern animal is closest to their ancestors doesn't mean you cna claim they didn't evolve. Exactly from WHAT group they developed is doubtful with most groups of small vertebrates - simply ebcause the fossil record is rather poor, considering the rseolution you demand. But the presents of legged snakes and vestigial legs and hips in recent snakes clearly shows a connection to legged lizard-like animals that your 'only within a kind' theory can't really explain in any meaningful way!

So, what, they just appeared out of nowhere? That's what the evidence says. Funny, a kind appearing out of nowhere like that (yeah, snakes are another kind). Almost as if by design. Especially when you consider that all other ancient snakes were as snake-like as modern snakes, with no primitive features.

snakes are a kind, but GOldfish are a kind? Come on, forget the kind stuff, it doesn't make any sense

and no, not out of nowhere - you know that well enough. And the ancient snakes were obviously NOT as snake-like as modern snakes - I eman, some had even rather nice complete and functional hind legs! Don't go making BS claims! As for the legless ancient snakes, check the huge naumber of ancestral features in the verts and the skull - one book you can use I named above

It's no surprise that snake origin is in doubt, they not even sure where reptiles came from in the first place...
I suppose snakes came directly from amphibians and bypassed reptiles completely is what they'll tell us next.

no, definately not, as snakes lay reptilian egss, they are amniotes.

Well, whatever. I'm sure you have an insulting snappy comeback for this too. As long as you can play alpha to my male successfully, you'll continue to 'earn' support. So be it.

:rofl: