There's also that group that believes we aren't really here, we just think we're here. LOL

Good! I'm glad you have come to the conclusion that Creationism is not a Scientific Theory, as it has little to no scientific evidence to back it up.

Now that the OP has agreed that Creationism is not a Scientific Theory, is anyone else of the opinion that this thread should be closed?

No. I'm not of the opinion that it should be closed. Are you trying to make us go crazy? We're having a good conversation. BTW, if you read back a few pages we've already agreed that creationism and evolutionism are belief systems. The difference is that we creationists have a little easier time admitting it.

Wait... You aren't calling those verses that were supposed to be prophetic, which the validity and truth of was immediately shown to be doubtful, and generally accepted by historians to have been written AFTER the time of the prophesies 'Scientific Evidence', right?

Oh wait. Maybe you are talking about those vague claims in the bible to the importance of running water or another 'important piece of science', which I all explained was an obvious prediction, or commonly accepted knowledge at the time? (IE- Egyptians had basic irrigation systems through some towns, and would often bathe in the Nile)?

Because those are usually not correct, and are not scientific evidence.

Most mutations ARE NOT POSITIVE! They are neutral or negative. Mutations are often fatal in an organism.

I'll simplify mutations for you:

A bird has a mutation and grows a third wing. The wing is an extra feature due to the mutation, however it throws off the birds equilibrium and it is never able to fly and it has trouble walking due to its one side being weighted greater than the other. It is easily picked off by a predator.

This is more likely to occur with a mutation than something favorable that helps an organism. We very rarely see positive mutations.

Now you want to rely on multiple positive mutations over an extended period of times. This is relatively impossible. Because for one positive mutation to occur you going to have many negative and neutral mutations occur first. These mutations would also have to occur within the sexual reproductive system so they can be past down. SO even if say a bird was to have a mutation that gave it stronger wings, it wouldn't be passed down to the next generation unless it was specifically changed it the sexual reproductive system.

2. Drawings and pictures on wikipedia aren't scientifically sound. Please show fossilized skeletons of what you say was transitional right before modern man.

3. What claims were debunked?

[quote name='Yetihunter' date='May 8 2008, 11:23 PM' post='2289358']
No. I'm not of the opinion that it should be closed. Are you trying to make us go crazy? We're having a good conversation. BTW, if you read back a few pages we've already agreed that creationism and evolutionism are belief systems.




Who the hell agreed on that ,somebody not in touch with reality??



fullywired

I believe he's trying to construe one of my statements by saying I said evolution is a belief system, when I never said that. I explicitly said it wasn't.

If I said something, I apologize. But finding anything from respected Creation scientists is few and far between simply because they get berated for what they believe and try to prove.

Acutally, with that comment(and the 'glad you agree' comment): Yes. I was simply trying to show you how bloody annoying off-topic and word twisting sarcasm is.


When we should be having a debate.
For some odd reason, you don't seem to want to.


I remember it as:
YOU believed that, and the majority were in dis-agreement with that claim.

Creationism- a baseless guess that asserts the world was recently created by an old man in the sky.

Evolution- A well backed up scientific theory and Fact, which are both supported by observation, scientific evidence, the fossil record, modern geology, anthropology, botany, statistics, biology, nuclear physics, chemistry, and just about every other science in existence.

You keep twisting the meaning of belief system.
Heck, according to you, the assertion that the universe wasn't created yesterday by the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a belief system.

What IS a belief system is exactly how those first few cells, and the big bang, got started. AKA- there is no evidence to back up exactly what was before the big bang, and exactly how the first life formed.

Abiogenesis is a belief system, but it is still better then Creationism: At least we know it is possible.


Of course, you already know that Fundamentalist Creationism conflicts and contradicts almost every field of modern science, because you have yet to question my list of conflicting sciences.

Cheers,
SQLserver

No tarheelsFan, you have been completely polite and genuinely participating in this debate by actually trying to add SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, which a few others have forgotten about.

1. WRONG, and Illogical to boot.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

2. Unbelievable! UNBELIEVABLE! Sigh. OK, I'm posting fossils for each of the forms indicated on the extremely well backed up wikipedia article. What an Excuse to get out of an answer.

3. As I recall, all of them. Perhaps you can bring up something? After all, that is your job in this thread.

Fossils:
The earliest life appears.


prokaryotes


eukaryotes


choanoflagellates


sponge-like creature


cnidarians


Flatworms


more are coming.
SQLserver

Ok, just making sure. Did you forget some of the most influential scientists in history were Creationists? Were they just ignorant of science?

1. Robert Grosseteste
2. Roger Bacon
3. Sir Frances Bacon
4. Johannes Kepler
5. William Harvey
6. Blaise Pascal
7. Robert Boyle
8. Sir Isaac Newton
9. Antony van Leeuwenhoek
10. Carolus Linnaeus
11. William Herschel
12. John Herschel
13. Samuel F.B. Morse
14. Michael Faraday
15. Charles Babbage
16. James Prescott Joule
17. Lord Kelvin
18. James Clerk Maxwell
19. Gregor Mendel
20. Louis Pasteur
21. Joseph Lister
22. Henrietta Swan Leavitt
23. George Washington Carver
24. Werner von Braun
25. James Irwin
26. A.E. Wilder-Smith
27. Raymond V. Damadian
28. Henry M. Morris
29. Richard D. Lumsden
30. Walt Brown
Just to name a few.


Tarheelsfan

That doesn't matter, what matters is it is a genetic change.

The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total. Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample ^[1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively ^[2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature ^[3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html


for full article

You know a good few of them where died before evolution was theorised.

Acorn worms


Pikaia


Agnatha


Placoderm


Sarcopterygii


Titaalik


Acanthostega


Ichthyostega




More's a coming!
SQLserver

OK- Look, WWF- I do not have enough time to put up every single fossil.
Are there any others in particular you would want? As you can see, the fossils exist.

But without them, science wouldn't be where it is today now would it? The idea that we were descended from a lesser species was thought of by Aristotle. That's the earliest i've heard of anyways.

That is irrelevant, that does not support creationism in anyway. Evolution was theorised in the 19th century (and by a Christian).
Aristotle did not have that idea, he devised the idea of taxonomy however.

I know it doesn't support it, it wasn't meant to. It's funny how someone with a degree in theology from Cambridge, can come up with a scientific theory for the origins of life on earth, and write two books about it!

The thread got hijacked in the very beginning. I've tried to recover a little and pick it up some. I didn't make my points and now you can see why. Your comments about creationism are false but you choose to not see it. On this thread you haven't blashphemed but you have on many others and that's one of my biggest beefs with you. I don't see how you can treat others with disdain and not expect to get some back. Unless you're some type of karma chameleon or something.....

As far as the belief system comments go - well OK - I've already gone over all this stuff thoroughly so I don't see the point in re-hashing it. The theory of evolution and abiogenisis are both belief systems and I've clearly defined my position on that. If you disagree that's fine. If you choose to believe in either or both, that's fine too. Every person has their own choices to make.

As far as the scientific evidence goes, let's just consider a few things.
1. Earth/moon system a maximum of 1.5 billion years. I posted a scientific paper on another thread from a physicist who published his results. You dismissed them.
2. St. Helen's pyroclastic rocks - same scenario - you rejected it because the guy was a creationist.
3. Variation in c measurements - same thing only this time the guy published a kick-butt paper that was not so easily dismissed. Still, you claim it's just another attempt at a creationist trying to prove a young earth theory.

Think about this. If you (or the scientific community) has such issues with this data, why not go out and re-do the experiments. That's what good science is all about right? Peer review. I'll answer those questions for you. Science doesn't touch those studies with a ten foot pole because the results would counter the established position of the scientific community. Now don't go calling me a conspiracy theorist, but there is obviously a conscious or sub-conscious situation there.

Why don't scientists go out and replicate the Mt. St.Helen's experiments? What if their results were similar? What would the implications be? Same thing with the other two. To confirm that data would be to trash the theory of evolution.

And as I've already pointed out, scientists have made a conscious decision that they disagree with creationism on philosophical grounds so they have chosen to reject it. That's like saying that something can't be so it must not be. It's just fallacious reasoning.

Ok,

I think we need a big timeout here. We seem to be getting carried away, side tracked with other issues and having a "link war". I don't think this is to anyone's benefit as it simply is not keeping sound lines of communication open. We were discussing a few points a few pages back and seem to have "forgotten" them. Lets try and address these issue before we get too carried away.


Firstly, Yeti

You posit that the speed of light is possibly decaying. Now I posted to you a very sound and well thought response to all the collective works of Setterfield et al. In response you replied


My opening statement was made as such because the links and arguments you provided were from the realm of "creation science". Meaning, the work by Setterfield and his colleagues was not done from an unbiased viewpoint. Setterfield believed the earth to be 8,000 years old and then went playing with numbers in an attempt to prove this. This much different than someone like Clair Patterson setting out to explore the age of earth, believing it to be a few hundred thousand years old and then finding evidence to the contrary by U-Pb dating techniques. I am sure you can understand this difference.

Now, even if you do not feel equipped to address the whole works posted, I think it imperative that you read through the appendices. They contain a good bit of simple calculus mistakes (I have faith you can follow some simple calculus and complex algebra). Now in light of this argument stomping evidence, will you kindly provide some counters or concede the point that Setterfield, Montgomery and the rest of the gang are simply making up their own math and physics?



I have explained to you why bacteria make such good models for evolution, however the scope of evolutionary science is not limited to microorganisms. You again, have ignored or missed this post. In hopes of keeping lines of communication open, I wish that you would address it. Also, in my PM to you I provided you with references to plants as well. If you wish to delve more into this subject after responding to the current issues at hand, I would gladly show you some very interesting things with "kinds" of plants changing into other "kinds" of plants. Also, Doug made a good post regarding this plant hybridization thing.



Walkingwith,

I claimed you did not understand genetics above a 7-8th grade Mendelian genetics scheme. You have done yourself no credit. Most mutations is subjective. Show me a study about most mutations. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Where not sure where "most" mutations occur, though if we have to venture to guess, I am sure most other biologisits or geneticists would agree that "most" mutations are in non-coding regions of the genome and are passed on with not cost to fitness to offspring.

I posted to you a very specific article in hopes of discussing "new information". Your reply was this:


Now, I do think you are confused about genetics. Your very short response complete side stepped the posted material, all you have done is make an excuse for not pushing your chips in the pot here. I will oblige you though and grant you a pass if this extremely straightforward scientific study is too in depth for you. I am sure others here will grant you a pass as well on their good nature, however I think it fair to request if this be the case, you kindly drop your dishonest statements about the nature of genetic change. As it seems to be clearly above your head.

In case you care to change your mind and retain some form of dignity (though I highly suspect you will reply to me with any number of excuses why you have yet to address the material) then HERE is link to my original post.


Mr. Son,

I posted a response to your quote below


I addressed your logic and its misuse as it pertains to science. See that HERE

When I posted


It was not with sinister motives. It was a response to your saying quotes like


Reading this leads me to the conclusion you simply have no idea what biological evolution is, nor what the theory of evolution by means of natural selection entails. If you are not sure why saying "Your son evolved" or "Your descendent's will be 10 feet tall" is not representative what evolution actually is and says, I would be more than happy to help you understand.

If we can please follow through with some lines of thought and post less 10+ link posts, I think we can get a lot more accomplished. This includes both sides, extremely large unformatted for message board pictures as well

This is entertaining.

You just figure that out? LOL JK
It's also very informative.

Yeti,

Lets stick with one argument at a time for a moment. Let's address the decay of the speed of light. Now you claim that Montgomery and Setterfield posted a scientific paper. Can you tell me in what journal it/they were published and tell me the review board for that journal.

Let's not get confused that because something may appear scientific in nature -for instance the use of Greek characters in mathematical formulas, does not make it so.

You also maintain, as you accused me of doing, that scientists reject creationists on philosophical ground. This is wrong, blatantly. I am not sure what academic circles you run in, but the ones I frequent I have never heard this. I think many scientists actually do give some creation arguments the time of day, but when your argument starts out with "I believe the earth to be 8,000 years old and I have formulated calculations to prove it", you are likely to get an eye rolling response.

Above I ask you, do you not see the difference in how science is being practiced between these two groups? Montgomery and Setterfield make simple calculus errors in their papers, many of them, their formulas disagree with real world observations, both in and out of the lab. They make assumptions and create variables when they get stuck. Math is one of the hardest areas to find support for creationism, because it is so rule oriented. You can not disregard rules to find derivations simply because it provides you with unrealistic numbers for your change in c
.

Would you agree that these are glaring problems with Montgomery and Setterfield's assessments?

Which is backed up with significant amounts of scientific evidence and speciation and micro-evolution have been proven.

Many mutations are more subtle than that. Positive is quite a relative term when talking about this type of thing. I agree that usually mutations are not helpful for the organism - but if there is a differing environment/variables that makes the mutation advantageous - it shall be so.

Hey look at that i'm not on copasetics' list! Woohoo! Okay, just had to act immature for a moment. But alas we have gotten off track, time to get this train back on the tracks and get rolling!

First of all, you can't clump Montgomery and Setterfield together. Montgomery used more that Setterfields data in his research. Secondly, I haven't used my caclulus or algebra skills for years other than to help my son with his math homework. I don't know about Setterfield and his comments about 8,000 years. If you want me to spend some time looking at the equations, fine. I don't feel personally qualified or inclined to dispute the findings of a professional mathematician/research scientist - maybe you do? I have to leave in fifteen minutes for a prior engagement. But, before I look into the math (when I return) please answer my previous post. What about my comments on the studies I mentioned?

Yeti,

There is something fishy in your line of thought here. You want us to take Montgomery's work as genuinely scientific because he is a professional mathematician (though he only has a BA in mathematics, which makes your statement rather misleading in my opinion). You post his works as "proof or evidence" and call it "sound questions" being raised.

His work as well as his fellows is torn to shreds by a Ph.D. Physicist who works for NASA. You then state you are not qualified to review this physicists work, though truth be told his writing is clear concise and he walks you through the incorrect conclusions Setterfield and Montgomery have drawn.

The interesting part here is, you claim innocence in ignorance for the clear work of a NASA scientists, but you have no problem accepting or "following" the work, the same topic of equations, of one who is a creation "scientist".

Surely you see your own Duplicity here? If you are not qualified to follow the rebuttal how can you be qualified to follow the argument in the first place? How can one who hasn't used their calculus or algebra skills in years be qualified to call this a sound argument?

It doesn't matter? How can it not matter? If the frog just became another kind of frog, and if the bacteria strain just became a genetically poorer bacteria strain how can that not matter to the idea that through successive changes a cow-like creature becomes a whale-like creature?

Hey copacetic, any closer to finding the error in item #1 of the lesson plan or my deductions based on it? Or have you decided you'd rather just ot go there because it would cause you to question other things about your world view?

Here's the problem - that test was done using the Potassium-Argon dating method, which IS NOT ACCURATE for the material that was tested.

I have been able to find statements on the web from the following well known/respected places stating that young volcanic rocks (less than 100000 years old) cannot be dated reliably by this method:

Tulane University
The New Mexico Bureau of Geological and Mineral Resources Geochronology Lab
Center for Geological Survey (CGS) (Pusat Survei Geologi) Geological Agency, Indonesia
Department of Anthropology, UCSB
British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau

I could list more, but I think I have made my point - a point, which I might add, has been made many, many times in this thread.

Mr. Son

, I think you need to go back to page 34 and reread the thread. You seem to keep missing me referring you back to the post I made about your incorrect use of logic. If you decide to take the blinders off, the post can be found HERE. I have now addressed this two times. If you keep on ignoring my posts then accusing me of "not addressing your points" and "hiding behind my world view" (which seems to be a pretty common "get of jail free card" here) then I can find no reason to continue this discussion. I am a very open minded, reasonable person, but you keep accusing me of not addressing your deductions when I have.

Your position is wonderful, Yeti, and it personally happens to be my position that the theory that the Universe was NOT Created yesterday by the FSM is a belief system.
It is also my position that your SN being YetiHunter is a belief system.
It is also my postition that the theory that gravity will work tommorrow is a belief system.

You see, Yeti, one cannot prove anything in life that isn't mathematical.
We must accept the best, most backed up theories on just about everything if we want to actually get by, but also keep an open mind, which every 'Evolutionist' on this board has.


OK. THAT IS IT. I have NEVER, EVER, dismissed this! I've asked you at least 3 times to back it up with some kind of source, and EVERY TIME you choose to ignore me.
Care to give it now?


Unbelievable! Here's the EXACT same argument I believe I posted twice earlier.

1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.

2. Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

Henke, Kevin R. n.d. Young-earth creationist 'dating' of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals. http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

I NEVER said anything about him being a Creationist!

This is what irks me so much about you Yeti!(Besides your refusal to debate) You keep putting words in my mouth that I've never even been close to implying.



I'm Going to put this in Bold and Caps because it is so bloody important, and you tend to MISS these things.
I HAVE NEVER, EVER, SAID THAT THE ARGUMENT IS FALSE BECAUSE THE GUY IS A CREATIONIST!
Get it?
GET IT?
Stop putting bloody words in my mouth Yeti. It seems obvious to me you are either trying to be annoying, or confusing me with someone else.
Tiggs gave a great argument on the validity of the Experiments.(Including his point on the evidence points the speed of light has gotten faster, and not slowed) Here was the EXACT argument I used.

# The possibility that the speed of light has not been constant has received much attention from physicists, but they have found no evidence for any change. Many different measurements of the speed of light have been made in the last 180 or so years. The older measurements were not as accurate as the latest ones. Setterfield chose 120 data points from 193 measurements available (see Dolphin n.d. for the data), and the line of best fit for these points shows the speed of light decreasing. If you use the entire data set, though, the line of best fit shows the speed increasing. However, a constant speed of light is well within the experimental error of the data.

# If Setterfield's formulation of the changes in physical parameters were true, then there should have been 417 days per year around 1 C.E., and the earth would have melted during the creation week as a result of the extremely rapid radioactive decay (Morton et al. 1983).

Dolphin, Lambert, n.d. Table 1: Master Set of 193 Values of c. http://www.ldolphin.org/cdata.txt. See also http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

Morton, G. R., H. S. Slusher, R. C. Bartman and T. G. Barnes, 1983. Comments on the velocity of light. Creation Research Society Quarterly 20: 63-65.

Aardsma, Gerald E., 1988a, "Has the speed of light decayed?," Impact #179, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
Aardsma, Gerald E., 1988b, "Has the speed of light decayed recently?," Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(1): 36f.

Here's a few more arguments I've found:

# Setterfield's argument does not hold water. There are differences between historical measurements, but they are within the bounds of accuracy - the first measurements were very inaccurate, then they became more and more accurate. Setterfield blows the differences up by not only extrapolating them into the past without justification, but also using a curve cooked specially to point at an age Setterfield wanted to get. A constant speed of light is well within the error bars.
# Even if the speed of light did decrease since creation, then that would only place Supernova 1987A even further back in time and so this would not imply a young universe.[1]
# This is accepted by many Creationist groups as an invalid argument, and has not been used in some time.
# If the speed of light were faster in the past, that would make the universe older, not younger than it is currently believed to be.

[1]http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm


We've been doing both RadioMetric and Speed of Light studies for years. They almost always contradict the evidence shown in these few experiments.

Sigh. Yeti, WHY must you do this! There is no reason to try and cheat at having a reasonable debate. Please don't put words in my mouth, avoid questions, etc. You realize that by doing so you are just making yourself look foolish, right?

-SQlserver

Nice try, but not good enough. As I stated I could care less about what causes or doesn't cause emotions. I am interested in addressing what led me to make the statement I made which has to do with the items on the list. I specifically pointed it out and you even quoted the post on your post #34, but you decided not to address it, you instead stayed on the safer subject of the cause of emotions.

I'm talking about fossils of whatever you're claiming predates humans. Apeman fossils or whatever.

"Most mutations are not helpful" is a baseless assumption. Since we constantly seem to be going back to what is scientific, as Walkingwith is fond of setting himself up as an authoritarian to do, then I think we should stick with this standard.

We associate mutations with negative costs to fitness because those are the ones most evident to us. In reality, the vast majority of your genome is non-coding regions of DNA. Much of these regions control the timing and expression of genes, and some may do nothing at all. Mutations that occur in these regions are much harder to catch even ones that change the timing or expression of a gene, as an individual can often still function with these changes and no morphological differences maybe clearly visible.


Think about it like this, if we are to fly over a football field where coding DNA is represent by 1x10 yard segment, and drop a ball, where is this ball likely to hit? Statically speaking, in the other 90 yards.

And because neutral mutations are something harder to catalog we simply can't say that most mutations are occurring with negative impact.

Its also important to remember that the benefit of mutations is contextual: to the organism, population, species, time and place it arises. Its not quite as black and white as this is a good mutation and that is a bad mutation.

For instance, in the paper I posted a few pages back (FOUND HERE)the mutation that led to the always "on" condition of L-fucose isomerase we consider neutral, but it is only neutral b/c it had minor activity for D-arabinose. In a different environment, one that lacked a substrate for the isomerase, it would not have been so beneficial and a waste of cellular resources. We would expect that to produce a negative cost to fitness and ultimately lead to a dead end. It was dependent on the environment in which it arose.

Furthermore, the mutation that altered the structure of L-fucose isomerase we consider to be beneficial. It again is contextual. The mutation caused a change, which gave rise to a new gene in the population, the structural changed allowed for better metabolic activity on D-arabinose. Seems straightforward, however when taken out of this population or environment the structural change may result in catastrophe. For example, if it arose in a population currently utilizing L-fucose as a major carbon supply it would likely be a disaster for the individual and any possible descendants.

Note as well, the more important of the two mutations again occurred to a non-coding region of genome. L-fucose isomerase is not expressed except for in the presence of L-fucose. A structural mutation that increased its activity for D-arabinose is useless if no expression is occurring. The bacteria first had to have a mutation that allowed expression of L-fucose isomerase to remain "on".

Hope that all makes sense, its late and I dont feel like rereading for any errors!

I don't think you're seriously accusing me of trying to make myself look foolish - so that must be tongue in cheek.

I was waxing metaphorical and using "you" in my last post as representative of the evolutionists who refuse all the data I present. I wasn't trying to cheat, I was just speaking in general terms when answering your post, OK? I do avoid some of your questions as I said before because you ask so many and then don't accept my responses.

Swollen: I've heard your points about the St. Helen's rocks OK? I really just don't feel like re-exploring the issue at this moment. I'll probably look back into it later. Same goes for the earth moon thing. I was hoping that someone else would have stepped in and reposted it already.

Cope: I see that you haven't bothered to answer my simple question. Have you actually read the study I posted?

Mattshark, my question was:
Hhmmm ... what does that mean in simple, plain English?
Can you give very specific and detailed "trails" of this form of evolution?

I mean, simply showing a possible path of evolution is not proof, in my opinion.


I am not a scholar in any science, Mattshark, but I can follow the arguments others put forward. So, after reading through the wiki article, on Speciation, I was rather surprised how little proof it contains in support of "evolution". There is support for changes within species -- but no proof at all for one species evolving into another species ... unless you believe that the following examples are "evolution"???

Artificial speciation
New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry


Gene transposition as a cause
Theodosius Dobzhansky, who studied fruit flies in the early days of genetic research in 1930s, speculated that parts of chromosomes that switch from one location to another might cause a species to split into two different species.


Human speciation
Humans have genetic similarities with chimpanzees and gorillas, suggesting common ancestors. Analysis of genetic drift and recombination using a Markov model suggests humans and chimpanzees speciated apart 4.1 million years ago


* In animal husbandry, for example, a donkey is not evolution. Now, if a farmer obtained a "Purple People Eater" by crossing a chicken with a cow, then yes, I would accept that a new species had evolved.

* Or, if someone showed that a fruit fly evolved into something like a porcupine-eating carnivore, then yes, I would accept that a new species had evolved.

* Or if a human copulated with a horse, and produced a centaur, then ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur

Do you have a more convincing proof for evolution than speciation? Perhaps you could show a link as to how a crocodile turned into a bird?

I remain a skeptic,
Karlis

I understand you are new to these boards, but you must realize that a handful of us have a background in the sciences. You're not dazzling us with with your insults or attempts to prove your intellect. Just relax and support your arguments if you choose to make them. "Let me explain genetics" type comments don't work on here because some of us understand genetics very well and can see your attempts at personal attacks hidden within your posts.

Mutations very rarely bring a positive change in an organism or add genetic information. You're more likely to see just the opposite. Lots of times people say what if you take the following equation:

LOTS OF MUTATIONS X LOTS OF TIME = EVOLUTION <----------------However, this doesn't work because for all the positive mutations you needed to get the desired changes you got a whole lot more neutral or negative mutations. Also, mutations have to occur specifically in the sexual reproductive system to be passed down, so even if a change occurs it may not be passed down. For instance, if a human has a child with an extra finger and that child goes on to have children when he matures sexually, those children probably aren't going to have extra fingers, because the mutation only affected the hand and not the sexual reproductive system of the parent.


If you disagree with this, then feel free to state your reasoning why. THanks

Mr. Son,


Are you playing a game or did you not make the connection? I agree that science does indeed have limits (which is a function our technological capabilities), I agree that science is a tool as well.

You did not use this to arrive at the conclusions however based on knowing anything about science. I used emotions as an example, you clearly have not read my whole post nor the sections I pasted there for you from IU's website.

Let me spell it out for you with your example:



It is scientific to state, emotions are created by neurochemical reactions for the same reason it is scientifically correct to state that rainbows are caused by the refraction of unpolarized white light passing through raindrops. Both instances, we understand the science associated with it. It easy to look at a rainbow, an emotion or many other natural phenomona and want to attribute supernatural-like characteristics to it. Such as the "the human condition" or Iris -the Greek god responsible for rainbows. The reality is, as your website points out, this is a false assumption. You are assuming there is something more for no reason other than a thought in your head, you have no basis to say: science is limited in its study of emotions because parts of them lay outside of the boundaries of science (other than wishful thinking).

Your logic that Science is a tool to study the natural world (its limit in scope) is great, you fall apart when you create your ideas which "magically fall outside the realm of the natural", when every piece of evidence we have points to the contrary.

If you are going to use a website like that, I would humbly suggest you first read all of it and turn it over in your head. Because you seem to want to pick pieces from the website to support your argument and declare them an authority of science, but then tuck and run when they contradict your "logical conclusions".



Edit: Maybe I am not explaining this very clearly, Can anyone else see my points here or do I need to better clarify it for Mr. Son?

Well I am certainly glad to be dealing with a man of science, 1 of a handful. Are you going to address the post?


You keep repeating your mantra like a small child arguing against going to bed. Since you are a man of science, and well endowed in the study of molecular genetics, maybe you could introduce me to some formula you have derived to describe the "very rare positive nature of mutations". Better yet, you could provide me with your or others experimental data describing the trend that mutations are bad. Clearly, you need no explanation of genetics and could enlighten a novice in the field such as myself to this information you have.

Thanks

Edit: Sorry, I was laughing about that part there in bold for a good while and decided to do a quick edit and ask you a question. Since you are quite the geneticist, are you being coy? You are aware of how polydactyl occurs correct?

http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/Sp...0of%20Light.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html

There is no formula because mutations aren't based on some constant. Rates will change depending on the organism/circumstance/exposure.

Cystic fibrosis and cancer are examples of mutations in humans. We see these quite frequently from negative mutations. Can you name some positive conditions from positive mutations? You would probably have quite some difficultly because we don't see positive mutations very often. However we see lots of people with cystic fibrosis and cancer, among other diseases.

How do these two studies "measure" consciousness?

The second URL basically shows the differences in electric activity within a brain of a brain-dead subject and within a brain of a subject in a deep coma. Yes, one can conclude that there is a difference between a dead subject, and a subject in a coma who is alive.

Did you happen to read THIS part of the article in this quote....



Or notice this statement (bolding mine):



Or this one (again the bolding is mine):



In other words, this link that you are using as PROOF is ON RECORD as having reservations of the veracity of the theory.


One other quote you might be interested in:



I found this quote in a transcript of a show Joao Magueijo was on. This transcript was from the UC Davis Physics dept website. In case you don't understand the import of this quote, let me spell it out for you:

This is a quote, from one of the major scientists used as "proof" of the invariance of the speed of light in the links YOU provided, that says that this HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

In short, the links you provide show only that there is an UNPROVEN POSSIBILITY that the speed of light was faster at the beginning of the universe than it is now. NONE of the links you provide give PROOF, as you so desperately want to believe.

That didn't go over exactly as I had hoped.

I was trying to show that there was another article published in Nature by Paul Davies that came the same conclusions.

WWF,

If you truly do know genetics then this paragraph is evidence that you are here simply as a WUM.

For the first part...



Consider fitness. Yes, many of the mutations would seem to be neutral, however envioronmental factors decide (not in a sentient way) on whether a certain mutation makes an organism 'fitter' to survive and reproduce. Thus positive mutations get passed along the generational line of descent, mutations which make an organism 'less fit' get weeded out of the genome (although perhaps not entirely as mutations can reoccur).

For the second part...



Do you understand what sexual reproduction is?

Do you understand the germ plasm is a copy of the dna we are born with and any congenital mutation has to have been encoded in this DNA? Yes, there are exceptions where chance occurences can cause accidental mutation after the oragnisms' conception, but you specifically refer to sexual reproduction here and this highlights how you are either confused, or not understanding of the processes of which you speak.

For the thrid, and final, part...



You do understand that, in sexual reproduction there are two 'half-sets' of DNA passed on to the child...each child has actually got two parents?!?! The expression of a mutation is not guaranteed in successive generations of sexually reproductive organisms. Only when the mutation is a 'dominant' allele (or both genetic parents pass on recessive alleles) will a mutation generally be expressed as a feature of common descent.

You mean the article that Answers in Genesis has this to say about:



So, one of the lynchpin sites in your "proof" of the possible variance in the speed of light sees fit to add an addendum, authored by a NUCLEAR PHYSICIST, that basically says that the Paul Davies Nature article isn't really about the speed of light, and, the part that is doesn't live up to the hype the press has placed upon it!

Are you ready to concede that there is much disagreement as to whether the speed of light is slowing down at all, and therefore, you cannot use it as scientific "proof" of creation?

A wonderfully imaginative science-fiction creation, SQL.
"... The timeline of human evolution ... possible ancestors of Homo sapiens sapiens. ... and presents a possible line of descendants that led to humans."

As I wrote earlier -- it takes faith to believe in evolution.


Lack of over-lapping fossil records, for starters.

If you mean this link which you gave, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
My answer is that the author has a very vivid imagination.

No -- I know no scientific evidence that God created the universea and life on Earth.


There are many things Man does not know.
Karlis