Evolution

[marduk]

Welcome to the forum

just what we need

a total fruitcake

you'll fit right in i'm sure

Edited August 11, 2005 by marduk

[weasel54849]

Welcome to the forum

just what we need

a total fruitcake

you'll fit right in i'm sure

783791[/snapback]

LOLOLOL. Thanks for the welcome.

[marduk]

no problem

anytime you want to hear about who you actually think created the earth,

you come ask me

okay

[aquatus1]

FROM BASIC PHYSICS: A CONDUCTOR IMMERSED IN A MAGNETIC FIELD EXHIBITS A TORQUE DEPENDENT ON THE POLARITY OF THE FIELD AND DIRECTION OF RELATIVE CURRENT FLOW.

Any more questions? Or is it necessary to fully explain something that should be obvious? I don't consider it an extraordinary claim, just something that has escaped observation, as Faraday's wheel has escaped observation.

If you do not consider it an extraordinary claim, then do not use it as an example of something that all of science refuses to even contemplate the existance of. And yes, incidentally, if you choose to pursue this in a seperate thread, so as to not hijack this one, it will be necessary to explain the obvious. This is not a forum for even basic physics knowledge. Think high school level.

Hey aquatus how’s it going? Remember me? We had several debates about evolution about a year and a half ago on the mythbusters forum. I hope all is going well with you.

But anyway time for your trap, you said,

“People who understand evolution however, say "Egg", and are fully capable of supporting their answer (unlike those who claim God).”

Ok you say the egg came first, and you say you can support your answer, well I am all ears. Tell me how you know the egg came first and show me your support for your answer.

Goodness, it has been a while, hasn't it .

Okay, the famous Chicken or Egg question, as seen through the eyes of science:

It first whiff, this zen-like question is meant to be unanswerable, and thus an indication that evolutionary theory isn't all it's *ahem* cracked up to be. All yolks aside, to an evolutionist, the answer is quite basic. It is the egg that came first.

Allow me to elaborate. Scientists have identified that domesticated chickens (Gallus domesticus) were descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus) which appeared around 4,000 BC in Southeast Asia. Originally, records show that the chicken was primary bred for combat, and used for entertainment in the form of c*** fighting, rather than food. However, by 1400 BC the domestic chicken was popular throughout Asia and Europe and chicken eggs were hatched in mass incubators.

Now, in answering this question, there is something important about speciation that needs to be known, namely, what the word "species" means. In the realm of genetic evolutionary theory, species is defined as seperate groups of creatures who do not sustain reliable reproduction. In other words, they are two groups of creatures who, be it for genetic, morphological, social, or other reason, cannot produce a viable generation to follow them up. Take, for instance, the horse and the donkey. These are two seperate groups of creatures, and while they can breed, the offspring, the mule, is only very, very rarely fertile. Being unable to reliably produce fertile offspring allows them to be designated as seperate species (technically, true seperate species would not produce offspring at all, and therefore the horse and the donkey are refered to as incipient species, which are two groups of creature who are in the last lingering phases of speciation and can, for all intents and purposes, may be considered sepearte species).

Now, having defined what a species is, we need to figure out at exactly what point a species is created. That point is the zygote, with is the conjunction of the male sperm and the female ova, producing the most basic foundational cell of a new creature, the cell from which all other cells of this creature will generate from. The zygote is the fusion of the genetic material from the mother and the father, and it is this genetic material that, in the father and mother Red Jungle Fowl, was mutated to the point where the offspring would no longer be able to sustain reliable reproduction from its ancestral species. Since the zygote is the place where the genetic mutation is expressed through the creation of the new species, and the zygote is contained within the egg of the Red Jungle Fowl, we can, with complete accuracy, say that the chicken egg came before the chicken itself.

Is there anything that needs to be cleared up?

[xenopii]

I realize that this isn't central to the debate at hand, but how is a Red Jungle Fowl not a chicken?

[aquatus1]

The Red Jungle Fowl and the domesticated chicken are considered two seperate species because they do not reliably produce fertile young. The reason they do not is social, specifically that the mating habits of the Red Jungle Fowl are not compatible with those of the domesticated chicken.

The Red Jungle Fowl is thought to be extinct in the wild. The only known specimens are in captivity.

[marduk]

or at a push you could have just said that

"Dinosaurs lay eggs chummy"

Doh

Homer Simpson moment

[aquatus1]

Yes, but then I wouldn't have had the chance to hear myself talk.

[marduk]

stroll on

[isis-999]

Yes, but then I wouldn't have had the chance to hear myself talk.

784808[/snapback]

[weasel54849]

aquatus1,Aug 11 2005, 03:48 PM]

Scientists have identified that domesticated chickens (Gallus domesticus) were descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl...

I don’t have a problem with that. Speciation is just as much a part of a creationist’s belief system as it is for an evolutionist. It is something that we can test and observe over and over again. It is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands. The difference lies in the conclusions we draw from the observations.

Now, you say that donkeys and horses are different species, that’s fine I don’t have any trouble with that. However, even though horses, donkeys, and even zebras can be viewed as different species, they are all the horse kind. Animals do change but there are limits to how much they can change. There can be many different varieties of horses produced, but the bottom line is they are all still horses. No matter how much selective breeding and genetic manipulation scientists do, they will never get a horse to turn into a cow. And there is nothing in science to contradict that statement.

Oh and Aquatus, you do realize that you didn’t solve the chicken/egg problem. You just shifted it to another area. I could ask you now which came first the Red Jungle Fowl or the egg, and you end up right back were you started.

Edited August 12, 2005 by weasel54849

[marduk]

sigh

the red jungle fowl or the egg.

Dinosaurs, laid eggs

way before that

Fish laid eggs

or do you want me to go to trilobites

ok

540,000,000 years ago trilobites laid eggs

can we consider the chicken/jungle fowl egg problem closed now

[aquatus1]

However, even though horses, donkeys, and even zebras can be viewed as different species, they are all the horse kind.

Ah, ah, stop right there. There is no such thing as 'kind'. In science, everything must be clearly defined, and 'kind' is about as vague as it gets. Either you clearly define what a kind is, or the argument is invalid.

Animals do change but there are limits to how much they can change.  There can be many different varieties of horses produced, but the bottom line is they are all still horses.  No matter how much selective breeding and genetic manipulation scientists do, they will never get a horse to turn into a cow.  And there is nothing in science to contradict that statement.

Of course there isn't; it isn't a scientific concept. It is impossible (statistically speaking) to turn a horse into a cow because they are not of the same evolutionary lineage. And, again, at what point is something a horse and something not a horse? Unless you clearly define what a horse is, then your argument is meaningless.

Most importantly, you are not addressing the very basis of speciation, i.e. genetic mutation. Do you accept that genetic mutation can change a creatures properties? If you do, but then claim that change only goes so far, then it is incumbent upon you to show why genetic changes suddenly stop just before speciation (indeed, you also have to define what point that is, and 'kind' or 'type' ain't going to do it). In other words, by what method does genetic mutation suddenly stop prior to creating speciation, when genetic mutation is cumulative and while inevitably change the genome to a point where it can no longer be recognized by its ancetral genome?

Oh and Aquatus, you do realize that you didn’t solve the chicken/egg problem.  You just shifted it to another area.  I could ask you now which came first the Red Jungle Fowl or the egg, and you end up right back were you started. 

785921[/snapback]

No, we would not. You would now be asking me whether a creature of one species came before the egg of a creature of a different species. That is a completely different question, and the answer is correspondingly different. The Red Jungle Fowl came before the chicken egg by about 4000 years.

[weasel54849]

Most importantly, you are not addressing the very basis of speciation, i.e. genetic mutation.

Mutations are basically just copying mistakes in the animal’s genetic code. It would be like if you had an audio tape of a song and you made a copy of it, then you take that copy and copy it, and then you take that copy…etc. With each time you copy it you run the risk of a mistake happening. The mistakes will accumulate and eventually your tape will not sound anything like the original. I know most mutations are harmless, like blue eyes, as you pointed out in past debates, but mutations are either neutral or cause a degenerating effect. We see things like a bird’s wings disappearing, or lizard legs degenerating, but we never see something that doesn’t have wings in the first place producing wings, or snakes growing legs. What we observe is not the onward upward progression that is required by evolution, but the opposite.

And, again, at what point is something a horse and something not a horse?

We see a lot of variation in horses, little mini horses, great big horses, zebras, donkeys, and even mules, but they are all still the horse “kind”. If a horse grew, say, feathers or scales instead of hair I would defiantly consider it something other than a horse. But we do not observe that type of thing happening.

Do you accept that genetic mutation can change a creatures properties? 

To a degree yes. Dogs can have pointy ears or long floppy ears, long pointy noses or noses that are flat. But that is not the kind of change that is required for evolution. We see slight variations, but we don’t observe processes that would suggest that some type of slime can continue to change until it becomes people.

Here’s the thing, evolutionists see minor changes occur and they think that all life came from a common ancestor, while a creationist sees the same minor changes and says it is just variation with in original kinds that God created. The diagram might make things a bit clearer.

Aquatus, let me ask you this: what is it specifically that leads you to accepting the evolutionary model rather than the creationist model? What is it that you see as flawed in the creationist model that is solved by the evolutionist’s model?

The Red Jungle Fowl came before the chicken egg by about 4000 years.

Sure I buy that, But my point is, you can back track all you want and keep pining the problems on something else, but you are still going to end up unable to explain how life could from, or how a cell that reproduces by dividing could become something that lays eggs, or how something that lays eggs could generate the ability for live birth and so on.

[aquatus1]

Mutations are basically just copying mistakes in the animal’s genetic code...

We see things like a bird’s wings disappearing, or lizard legs degenerating, but we never see something that doesn’t have wings in the first place producing wings, or snakes growing legs.  What we observe is not the onward upward progression that is required by evolution, but the opposite.

No deal. There is no such thing as upward progression. That is a result of the creationist mindset that things are designed with an ultimate goal in mind. This is not the case with evolution. There is no predestined outcome. Why would a birds wing disappearing be considered a degeneration? Why would the lengthening of the giraffes neck be considered progression? Evolution isn't about getting better or more complex; it is simply about change. Due to randomness, change tends to get more complex, but that does not mean that complexity is the purpose of evolution merely because it consists of change.

We see a lot of variation in horses, little mini horses, great big horses, zebras, donkeys, and even mules, but they are all still the horse “kind”. If a horse grew, say, feathers or scales instead of hair I would defiantly consider it something other than a horse.  But we do not observe that type of thing happening.

Of course not. Nor would we expect to. After all, neither of these things are part of their evolutionary heritage. In fact, if they did occur, we would have to re-think a good portion of evolutionary theory. Like I said, you need to be able to define 'kind'. It isn't good enough to be able to say that you would recognize a horse when you saw one. Science isn't about subjective observation. The description has to be such that any independant third party would also be able to follow it and come to the same conclusion. Why, for instance, isn't a cow a horse? You have to be able to define what makes one a cow and one a horse.

To a degree yes.  Dogs can have pointy ears or long floppy ears, long pointy noses or noses that are flat.  But that is not the kind of change that is required for evolution.  We see slight variations, but we don’t observe processes that would suggest that some type of slime can continue to change until it becomes people.

That is what I was talking about before. The process that causes the change is going to continue until people (theoretically) occur, and beyond. If you claim that this is not the case, then you must show why the process would stop on its own when there is nothing to indicate that it would. If we observe that a fire burns down a forest, then we make the assumption that the fire will continue to burn the forest because we have never seen a fire stop without being influenced by an outside force. Unless you can define the outside force that stops genetic mutation, there is no support for the argument that genetic mutation will stop on their own.

Aquatus, let me ask you this: what is it specifically that leads you to accepting the evolutionary model rather than the creationist model?  What is it that you see as flawed in the creationist model that is solved by the evolutionist’s model?

The essential flaw in creationism that does not allow me to take it seriously is the lack of a theory. Unless a theory of creationism can be presented which meets the exact same five pre-requisites of scientific methodology that every single other theory in existance meets, then it cannot be considered scientific. If you would like to give it a shot, try here:

Proof of Creationism

Sure I buy that, But my point is, you can back track all you want and keep pining the problems on something else, but you are still going to end up unable to explain how life could from, or how a cell that reproduces by dividing could become something that lays eggs, or how something that lays eggs could generate the ability for live birth and so on.

787098[/snapback]

Yes, but that wasn't the question, was it now? Nor are you asking the same question here, but rather two completely unrelated ones. The chicken or egg question asks at what point the genetic mutation is considered to have created a new creature. It does not ask how life could form, nor does it ask about the source of a genetic novelty. It is this exact vagueness that I used to chide you about in the Mythbusters forum, and more recently, here.

Science is all about clearly defined explanations for clearly defined phenomena. You cannot take the answer for one question, apply it to a different question, and then claim your question was answered incorrectly. That comes short of deceit.

Edited August 12, 2005 by aquatus1

[weasel54849]

If you claim that this is not the case, then you must show why the process would stop on its own when there is nothing to indicate that it would…. Unless you can define the outside force that stops genetic mutation, there is no support for the argument that genetic mutation will stop on their own.

You misunderstand me, I am not saying mutations will stop, I am saying they are limited in what they can do. There is only so much change that can take place. It’s like this: say you have blue dye, you can use that and get variations in the color blue, but you are limited in how much variation can take place. Until you add something more like yellow dye, that blue dye will never become green.

Of course not. Nor would we expect to. After all, neither of these things are part of their evolutionary heritage. In fact, if they did occur, we would have to re-think a good portion of evolutionary theory.

Hold on now, evolutionists believe that reptiles grew feathers and changes into birds. Are you saying that the reason they grew feathers is because birds were a part of the reptile’s evolutionary heritage? Sorry to tell you but that line of reasoning doesn’t work.

Why would a birds wing disappearing be considered a degeneration?

Because it is losing something it once had.

Birds can lose their ability to fly because of genetic mutation, but I challenge you to give me one example of an animal that has never had the ability to fly, gain such an ability.

Why would the lengthening of the giraffes neck be considered progression? 

The Giraffe’s neck couldn’t just grow longer. It’s not that simple. A lot of extra traits would also need to evolve simultaneously. For example in order for blood to be forced up that long skinny neck, it needs a very powerful hart. But what happens when it bends down to get a drink? All the blood would be forced into its brain and it would burst. But that doesn’t happen because there is a series of valves that constrict the blood flow when it bends down. However, past the last valve there is still enough blood drain into its head and pop its brain, but there is a spongy area that absorbs the remaining blood so the giraffe drinks with no worries. Now say it gets his drink and lifts its head quickly, why doesn’t it get light headed and black out? It’s because that spongy part gently releases the blood into the brain. Now tell me what is random about that? There is nothing random about it. I say it was designed by God. And there is nothing in science to contradict that belief.

No deal. There is no such thing as upward progression.

If there was no evolutionary progression, you would never get beyond slim, or more notably, plain dead matter.

Unless a theory of creationism can be presented which meets the exact same five pre-requisites of scientific methodology that every single other theory in existence meets, then it cannot be considered scientific.

I will be the first to admit that not every area in creationism is based on observable science, there is faith involved. However it is no different when it comes to evolution, in fact I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution.

Tell you what aquatus, why don’t you tell me where it is that creationism falls flat and how evolutionism picks up the slack.

The chicken or egg question asks at what point the genetic mutation is considered to have created a new creature.

I don’t say it is a new creature but just a variation of a preexisting creature.

[aquatus1]

You misunderstand me, I am not saying mutations will stop, I am saying they are limited in what they can do.  There is only so much change that can take place.  It’s like this: say you have blue dye, you can use that and get variations in the color blue, but you are limited in how much variation can take place.  Until you add something more like yellow dye, that blue dye will never become green.

What's the difference between a limitation and a stopping?

If you are saying that mutations are limited (i.e. they will come to a stop), then you have to explain what it is that causes the limitation. Currently, there is nothing that indicates that natural mutation ever ceases, and the cumuluative effects of mutation will, inevitably, lead to differentiation of species.

If you wish to claim mutations are like blue dye, you are going to have to show why.

Hold on now, evolutionists believe that reptiles grew feathers and changes into birds.  Are you saying that the reason they grew feathers is because birds were a part of the reptile’s evolutionary heritage?  Sorry to tell you but that line of reasoning doesn’t work.

You've got it backwards. Reptiles came before the birds; reptiles are part of the birds evolutionary heritage, not the other way around. If we where to say that birds could evolve scales, then that might be possible, because the existence of the genetic data for that might still exist within the bird's genome (although it is pretty unlikely).

Because it is losing something it once had.

Birds can lose their ability to fly because of genetic mutation, but I challenge you to give me one example of an animal that has never had the ability to fly, gain such an ability.

You bet. Velociraptor couldn't fly. He later evolved into Eoulidae, who could.

Losing an ability is not a degeneration, unless you wish to consider such things as accidental blindness or limb amputations as degenerations. They are simply changes to a life that are overcome with other abilities. A bird that loses the ability to fly like other birds develops the ability to run, unlike other birds.

The Giraffe’s neck couldn’t just grow longer.  It’s not that simple... Now tell me what is random about that?

Putting aside that the giraffe was presented as an example of an evolutionary novelty that occured, which is not possible to argue since, well, it exists, I will address your completely separate question, the randomness of evolution.

Essentially, the error here is in thinking that the giraffe's neck suddenly appeared out of nowhere in one complete piece. This is incorrect. Had that actually occured, that would be greater proof of creationism than any of the weak arguments that are presented so regularly. The evolution of the neck was a process that occured in countless smaller steps, each one the product of a dozen different mistakes, and only the most successful of the mistakes leading to the final product. Ten giraffes were born, some with stronger hearts, some with weaker. The ones with the stronger hearts were able to pump blood more efficiently to their enlarging necks, and were more successful at passing along their genetic lineage. A dozen giraffes were born, some with a more complex vascular system than others, and these again were more succesful than those that got dizzy when they drank water and got eaten by the lions. Eventually, the lineage that got the grouping of evolutionary changes that we know of now survived to the present day, and even today continue to evolve.

There is nothing random about it.  I say it was designed by God.  And there is nothing in science to contradict that belief.

Well, I already explained the random aspect of it. In regards to God, you can say it was Him who did it all you want and I will simply shrug. If, however, you claim that you have a scientific theory about God doing it, then I will take an interest. Until such time, however, don't mistake a postulate for a scientific theory.

There is nothing in science to contradict God because God is not scientific in nature. Until God is presented as a scientific theory, He is, essentially, irrelevant. Rmemeber, scince doesn't care about why; science only care about how.

No deal. There is no such thing as upward progression.

If there was no evolutionary progression, you would never get beyond slim, or more notably, plain dead matter.

Goodness, you do enjoy playing with words, don't you?

I said that there is no such thing as upward progression, with the clear insinuation that all evolution must lead to more complex and 'better' creatures. There isn't. There is such a thing as evolutionary progression, but it is not the absolute result of every evolutionary change.

Unless a theory of creationism can be presented which meets the exact same five pre-requisites of scientific methodology that every single other theory in existence meets, then it cannot be considered scientific.

Tell you what aquatus, why don’t you tell me where it is that creationism falls flat and how evolutionism picks up the slack.

I told you exactly where creationism falls flat. Heck, I even gave you a link to a thread that I started with a specific and in depth explanation of how it fell flat and what would be need to correct it. Why are you asking the same question again?

What is neede from creationism is a clear theory that meets all the standards of scientific methodology. Without a valid Theory of Creationism, creationism cannot be considered a scientific theory.

I don’t say it is a new creature but just a variation of a preexisting creature.

787766[/snapback]

Until you can identify at what point one creature is one creature, and another is another, exactly as I did, your opinion on the matter is moot. Science isn't going to take your word on the matter that you can tell a chicken when you seen one.

[weasel54849]

If you are saying that mutations are limited (i.e. they will come to a stop), then you have to explain what it is that causes the limitation. Currently, there is nothing that indicates that natural mutation ever ceases, and the cumulative effects of mutation will, inevitably, lead to differentiation of species.

Here is an example: back in the 1800s plant breeders wanted to raise the sugar content in sugar beets. And over about 75 years of selective breeding, they were able to increase the beets sugar content from 6% to 17%. However, at that point the sugar content ceased to increase, and additional efforts failed to raise the sugar content any more. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

You've got it backwards. Reptiles came before the birds; reptiles are part of the birds evolutionary heritage, not the other way around. If we where to say that birds could evolve scales, then that might be possible, because the existence of the genetic data for that might still exist within the bird's genome (although it is pretty unlikely).

You said that the reason we would not expect to see horses grow feathers or scales is because, “, neither of these things are part of their evolutionary heritage. In fact, if they did occur, we would have to re-think a good portion of evolutionary theory.”

Feathers were not a part of a reptile’s heritage, so why do you think that a reptile grew feathers, but a horse could not? Just like a horse cannot grow feathers or scales because it does not have the genetic information to do so, a reptile could not grow feathers because the genetic information for feathers doesn’t exist within that animal.

You bet. Velociraptor couldn't fly. He later evolved into Eoulidae, who could.

That is not something that has been observed . It is based on speculation, not science. I can give you examples of animals that we can see in the present losing wings, legs, etc, but you can’t give me any example of observing something like a shrew growing wings, because that kind of change cannot happen.

Oh, and I haven’t heard of “Eoulidae” and I couldn’t find it on any search, so either your making this stuff up or you spelled it wrong.

A dozen giraffes were born, some with a more complex vascular system than others, and these again were more succesful than those that got dizzy when they drank water and got eaten by the lions.

Where is it that you think the genetic information for the more complex vascular system came from? Mutations are mistakes, flaws in the genetic code. Like mistakes copied on an audio tape, it will never lead to more complexity, but less. Randomness cannot produce order and complexity.

No one would look at this sand sculpture and say, “Oh look what the random wind and wave action produced”. That would go against what we observe and logic. And over time, it is not going to change for the better, it is going to change alright, but it will degenerate.

When it comes to living things, we see them change too. We see things like this.

A mutation that causes the chicken to lose the ability to produce feathers. Its not gaining anything, but losing something it once had.

And this

A mutation that disabled its ability to produce the little barbule and hook structures of standard feathers, and affects the feather growth.

We see a change in preexisting systems, but we do not see new systems forming.

We see things degenerating, but not generating new things like a more complex vascular system in a giraffe.

I told you exactly where creationism falls flat. Heck, I even gave you a link to a thread that I started with a specific and in depth explanation of how it fell flat and what would be need to correct it. Why are you asking the same question again?

I am asking the same question again because I didn’t get an answer. This is what I want: show me real and specific example of where the creationist model falls flat, and HOW evolution picks up the slack. Tell me specifically why and how they differ. Give me a side by side comparison of the example you pick. And tell me what is it that you see as flawed in the creationist model that is SOLVED by the evolutionist’s model? I want a specific example.

[LarryOldtimer]

weasel: Mutations are basically just copying mistakes in the animal’s genetic code. It would be like if you had an audio tape of a song and you made a copy of it, then you take that copy and copy it, and then you take that copy…etc. With each time you copy it you run the risk of a mistake happening. The mistakes will accumulate and eventually your tape will not sound anything like the original.

Yes, and according to Darwin, you could start with a tape of "Braham's Lullaby" and end up with the "William Tell Overture" by Gioachino Rossini if you only went on making copy after copy for a long enough period of time. The old monkeys on typewriters trick, doncha know?

[aquatus1]

Here is an example:  back in the 1800s plant breeders wanted to raise the sugar content in sugar beets.  And over about 75 years of selective breeding, they were able to increase the beets sugar content from 6% to 17%.  However, at that point the sugar content ceased to increase, and additional efforts failed to raise the sugar content any more.  Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

I'm going to have to see a source for your conclusion before I can accept it. It doesn't make any sense to me. Why would the quantity of genes that produce sugars equate to a limit in sugar production? Genes aren't little factories, each producing a limited quota of materials, and each capable of being summed into a genome through simple mathematical addition. Genes interact with each other, dynamically and in various unpredictable way. It is entirely possible for fewer genes interacting properly to produce more sugar than all the genes put together. Where did this example come from?

In all cases, regardless, let's say all the genes for sugar production had been gathered into the beet. What would keep mutations to the genome to continue, say changing the color of the beet, or the starch content (which would lead to a change in shape), or any other sort of evolutionary change?

You said that the reason we would not expect to see horses grow feathers or scales is because, “, neither of these things are part of their evolutionary heritage. In fact, if they did occur, we would have to re-think a good portion of evolutionary theory.” 

Feathers were not a part of a reptile’s heritage, so why do you think that a reptile grew feathers, but a horse could not?  Just like a horse cannot grow feathers or scales because it does not have the genetic information to do so, a reptile could not grow feathers because the genetic information for feathers doesn’t exist within that animal. 

That is an excellent question. The reason why a lizard could produce the evolutionary novelty that eventually became feathers and a horse cannot is because the lizard contains the genes that became mutated, while the horse does not. The evolutionary novelty in this case came about from a mutation in two important pattern forming genes, namely the Bmp2 (bone morphogenetic protein 2) and the Shh (sonic hedgehog—I kid you not). Simply put (very simply put), these genes regulate cell proliferation and differentiation. Normally, they help create standard skin cells. For some reason, that we will likely never know, however, millions of years ago that pattern changed. A slight mutation created a scale that, instead of its regular scale shape, instead came out as a hollow cone, very fine and long, almost like a hair. Over millions of years, and with a handful of other major evolutionary novelties, it developed into the basic feather of which we know of today, the first example of which has been found on the archeopteryx.

Now, horses do not contain these two genes, and therefore could not produce that first evolutionary mutation, and it is extremely unlikely that they could replicate the sequence that followed that lead to the modern feather in the same identical fashion (although, if they did, it would be a fantastic show of support for the idea that there is some sort of macro sequencing for genetic mutations). Now, having said all that, there have been a very few cases of parallel development, where a trait was replicated seperately along a different evolutionary line, but that is generally only a single evolutionary mutation, not a sequence like the ones that resulted in the modern feather.

That is not something that has been observed .  It is based on speculation, not science.  I can give you examples of animals that we can see in the present losing wings, legs, etc, but you can’t give me any example of observing something like a shrew growing wings, because that kind of change cannot happen.

This has been shown though the science of morphology, which you used earlier to support your argument. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nor will you ever see macro evolutionary changes on the scale that you are referring to, again becuase of the time scale that we are talking about. We haven't seen continents move a whole lot, but we have pretty solid evidence that their continous movement has resulted in some pretty radical geological formations. In other words, direct observation is not the only form of respectable science.

Oh, and I haven’t heard of “Eoulidae” and I couldn’t find it on any search, so either your making this stuff up or you spelled it wrong. 

It's entirely possible I spelled it wrong. I typed this response in the morning, and I'm not usually good till about my fourth cup of coffee. I'll look it up for my next post, or you can go into the debates section, on the last page, to the Evolution Vs. Creationism debate I put up, and you can find most of my arguments explained in depth there.

Where is it that you think the genetic information for the more complex vascular system came from?  Mutations are mistakes, flaws in the genetic code.  Like mistakes copied on an audio tape, it will never lead to more complexity, but less.  Randomness cannot produce order and complexity.

Randomness most certainly can produce order and complexity. In fact, complexity is the very sign of natural random action. Think fractals. Think snowflakes. Millions of random effects resulting in a complex and orderly result. Again, the problem here is that you are thinking in terms of an end result. In order to understand evolution, you need to get over the idea that things are what they were created to be. That isn't evolution; that is creationism. In creationist terms, your audio tape is what it is intended to be, and any deviation is a degeneration. In evolution, your audio tape is nothing more than a transitional form between what the tape was before and what it will be in the future. What sort of music it plays is irrelevant, because playing music is not the goal of its evolutionary path; indeed the evolutionary path didn't have a goal to begin with, it just ended up producing an audio tape by sheer coincidence.

Once you understand that, the idea that mutations being mistakes is no longer a negative thing, nor a positive thing, but merely something that occurs. Sometimes, the mistakes cause a data loss, sometimes they cause a data increase, sometimes they simply result in a data change. All of this is evolution. In the case of the vascular system, perhaps a mistake in the gene cause 10 arterial valves to be created instead of the original 5, giving the giraffe an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps another cause 2 vales to be created, turning the giraffe into lion chow. Neither of these is an increase or decrease of information, necessarily (increased number of valves does not equate to increased information, merely different information.

Until you are able to understand the different mindset that you need to have to understand evolution, it is going to continue giving you trouble.

No one would look at this sand sculpture and say, “Oh look what the random wind and wave action produced”.  That would go against what we observe and logic. 

Of course not. A form that simple screams intelligent design. Simplicity is the sign of intelligence. Complexity is the sign of natural and random effects.

A mutation that causes the chicken to lose the ability to produce feathers.  Its not gaining anything, but losing something it once had.

Again, you have to get rid of the mindset that feathers are the ultimate goal of chicken evolution. Until you can do that, you will have trouble understanding the concept.

I am asking the same question again because I didn’t get an answer.  This is what I want:  show me real and specific example of where the creationist model falls flat, and HOW evolution picks up the slack.  Tell me specifically why and how they differ.  Give me a side by side comparison of the example you pick.  And tell me what is it that you see as flawed in the creationist model that is SOLVED by the evolutionist’s model?  I want a specific example.

788807[/snapback]

A specific example? How much more specific can I get? Evolutionary theory is composed of six separate major theories, all of them meeting each of the prerequisites of scientific methodology, and each one of them clearly defining what natural phenomena they address and how it is explained.

Creationism does not have a theory. There is no clearly defined natural phenomena, there is no specific explanation of how that phenomena works.

This is the very basic, the most fundamental error that could exist. If creationism does not have a theory, then how can it be compared to theories? I can't think of how else to say this; I cannot give you an example of where creationist theory falls flat because there is no creationist theory to begin with.

Look, the Pythagorean theorum explicitely claims that in a clearly defined triangle (a right triangle), the sum of the squares of the two sides will always equal the square of the hypothenuse. This is a clearly defined phenomena with a clearly defined explanation of how it occurs. The Theory of Meiosis, one of the evolutionary theories, claims that, at a specific point, the genes within a cell meet in the center and are physically seperated, sometimes resulting in genetic mutation through re-arrangement of sequences. Again, a clearly defined phenomena with a clear (though lengthy) explanation.

In order to compare creationism with any of the evolutionary theories, creationism must first meet the standards of scientific methodology. This is where it falls flat. Creationism is unable to define a clear phenomena and provide an explanation for it, while meeting the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology (which are at that link I gave you earlier).

That is about as specific as I can get. Untill such time as creationism can prevent a theory with which to work with, it cannot be compared to a scientific theory; there is nothing there to compare.

I recommend that we pick one topic and work with that, as this is becoming entirely too unwieldy. Pick any one point and I will continue to debate with you on it.

[weasel54849]

I'm going to have to see a source for your conclusion before I can accept it. It doesn't make any sense to me. … Where did this example come from?

I got this example from an article written by Dr Lane P. Lester, who graduated from the University of Florida and holds a Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University, and M.S. in ecology. The article first appeared in “Creation Magazine”. http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp But a quick net search reviled quite a few sources with the same information.

In all cases, regardless, let's say all the genes for sugar production had been gathered into the beet. What would keep mutations to the genome to continue, say changing the color of the beet, or the starch content (which would lead to a change in shape), or any other sort of evolutionary change?

Nothing that I can think of would keep those kind changes from happening. I would fully expect you could get long skinny beets, or big fat ones, some with big leaves and some with small leaves. But if you are going to try to tell me that it could grow legs and start walking around, or turn into a tree, I will say “No, it’s not possible”

The reason why a lizard could produce the evolutionary novelty that eventually became feathers and a horse cannot is because the lizard contains the genes that became mutated, while the horse does not. The evolutionary novelty in this case came about from a mutation in two important pattern forming genes, namely the Bmp2 (bone morphogenetic protein 2) and the Shh (sonic hedgehog—I kid you not). Simply put (very simply put), these genes regulate cell proliferation and differentiation. Normally, they help create standard skin cells. For some reason, that we will likely never know, however, millions of years ago that pattern changed. A slight mutation created a scale that, instead of its regular scale shape, instead came out as a hollow cone, very fine and long, almost like a hair. Over millions of years, and with a handful of other major evolutionary novelties, it developed into the basic feather of which we know of today, the first example of which has been found on the archeopteryx.

That all sounds like a bunch of goblygook to me. It is all speculation and it is not based on science. It is not testable, and therefore doesn’t fit the requirements of a theory. I will accept that explanation as a hypothesis, but until you can take a reptile make it grow feathers, or something like a feather, I will not take it seriously.

This has been shown though the science of morphology, which you used earlier to support your argument. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

No, nothing like a shrew growing wings has ever been observed. Nor have I ever argued it is possible.

Randomness most certainly can produce order and complexity. In fact, complexity is the very sign of natural random action.

When archeologists find an ancient building or a piece of jewelry, how do they determine if it is man made or natural? Natural objects are random, man made objects are not. It’s not that hard.

Think fractals. Think snowflakes. Millions of random effects resulting in a complex and orderly result.

The crystallization of water molecules is not the same kind of thing. The pattern that is produced is based on the structure of the molecule itself, and is not the same kind of order that we see in living things or in the sand castle.

In creationist terms, your audio tape is what it is intended to be, and any deviation is a degeneration. In evolution, your audio tape is nothing more than a transitional form between what the tape was before and what it will be in the future.

It is not that a deviation is a degeneration, I could add an extra instrument into one of the copies and it would be a deviation from the original, but that type of change would make it more complex. A degeneration would be if the sound of the tape became staticy or choppy or if I took out one of the instruments.

How about this: when an animal dies, are you going to tell me that it is not degenerating? That it is just changing form and not losing any information?

Of course not. A form that simple screams intelligent design. Simplicity is the sign of intelligence. Complexity is the sign of natural and random effects.

Oh please tell me you are not serious, I know you can’t be serious. You are smarter than that, I know you are.

I can prove your statement wrong right now.

This is what natural and random effects produce:

This is what intelligent ordered effects produce:

Again, you have to get rid of the mindset that feathers are the ultimate goal of chicken evolution.

I am not saying that the feather is the ultimate goal. For all I care it can be an early stage of some kind of anti-gravity mechanism. But with the chicken, feathers are not changing, they are disappearing, and there is nothing taking its place, therefore degenerating.

Oh and just so you know, that other bird was a "budgie" they normaly look like this:

Creationism does not have a theory. There is no clearly defined natural phenomena, there is no specific explanation of how that phenomena works.

Why would you expect us to give you a clearly defined “natural phenomena” when the basis of creation is that everything was created “super naturally?”

Like I have said before, I accept everything an evolutionist observes. We all have the same science and the same facts, but the conclusions we draw from them are not the same. Where we differ is our story of history. When it comes right down to it both evolution and creation are faith based.

The Theory of Meiosis, one of the evolutionary theories, claims that, at a specific point, the genes within a cell meet in the center and are physically seperated, sometimes resulting in genetic mutation through re-arrangement of sequences. Again, a clearly defined phenomena with a clear (though lengthy) explanation.

Creationists don’t disagree with that. it’s just as much a part of their belief as the evolutionists. What’s the problem?

[marduk]

basing science on religion is doomed to failure

at some point someone is going to prove that god and his flood never existed

then where will your ideals be ?

You'd best get your story straight, even the catholics are predicting the end of days

that doesn't mean the end for the world

just the end for "the word"

[aquatus1]

Weasel, I am growing a little tired of you taking the answers for one question and using them for a different question. At best, I regard that as a naive, belief trumping logic approach, at worst, outright deception. I will not continue this unless you limit yourself to one topic at a time. You choose it, and I will explain it to however much detail you wish.

[weasel54849]

Ok right now this is what I want to know.

What it is that you can prove, as an evolutionist, that a creationist would disagree with?

What is it that a creationist can’t explain that an evolutionist can?

See, this is what I am driving at, as a creationist, I don’t have any problem with your science; it’s the same science I understand and believe. The dispute is not about science or about facts, ultimately, it is about how you interpret the facts, and this depends upon your belief about history. The real difference is that we have different accounts about what happened in the past, which we use to interpret the science and facts of the present.

Take natural selection for example. I believe in natural selection. However, you see variation in animals and say there is no limit to the change that can take place. That is a belief not based on observation, but based on your presupposition that all life originated from one source. But I look at it as just variation within created kinds. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind; sorting, shuffling or degrading it, Therefore, making the molecules to man type evolution unrealistic.

The reason we differ is because we have a different bias.

Real science doesn’t conflict with creation, it’s just your interpretations that do. Until you can understand that you will continue to have trouble accepting creation as a viable explanation of origins.

To sum it up, evolution is more philosophical then you think it is, and less scientific than you think it is. That’s my point.

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

[aquatus1]

What it is that you can prove, as an evolutionist, that a creationist would disagree with?

Depending, of course, on the creationist ideaology that we are talking about, but generally speaking, I would say that evolution can provide a logical connection between primates that leads to the conclusion of a common ancestor.

What is it that a creationist can’t explain that an evolutionist can?

Creationist are unable to define the phenomena of creationism, nor are they able to provide an explanation of this phenomena that meets the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology.