It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
think you should have read what I said over a bit more carefully instead of just rejecting it out of hand.

I think you should take your own advice with respect to evolution, biology, and indeed science itself.


You just say wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Why am I wrong?

Because you are in error.



What makes you think that DNA can form itself?

What makes you think DNA can't have an increase in information?

What about the laws of thermodynamics?

Thermodynamics no more prevent organisms and dna from becoming more complex than they prevent disorded and chaotic water from becomming snow crystals.


It's complex to simple (as in the law of thermodynamics), rather than the other way around (which defy both common sense and the natural laws we can observe) .

The theories about thermodynamics do not obstruct evolution. And evolution does not say that things allways get more complex.


That's science, can be verified

Thats not science, you're invoking a supernatural being to do all of it and there is no way to show that this supernatural all powerful being didn't do it. God can't be proven wrong by science. Besides, there is no
vast reserves of genetic information for other species residing within all members of a kind.



, as this is what we observe that there are families of creatures.

And often those groupings of families are flat out wrong and get changed. Those groupings are mental constructs of man, not biological facts of nature.


When that species/ variant/type appears, God will isolate it with another like itself and multiply it.

Species don't pop up like you are saying, a lizard doesn't give bird to a bird. In the known examples of speciation (macroevolution) this is not at all how it happens.


I do not agree with Calvinists

Lets at least keep a pretense of sticking with a scientific consideration here and not concern ourselves with sectarianism.




It's just my opinion about God choosing which among a million sperm will impregnate an egg. I'm sure you will jeer me off the board for that one.

I really don't care about your beleifs one way or another and if people do start jeering you for them and try to laugh you off the board, then they're the ones that are going to find themselves off board.


It is an explanation of how and why new species suddenly and completely appear.

"God did it" is not much of an explanation.


I also realize there is an alternative explanation, which is that the species were always there to begin with, like the brown and white moths example,

I think you have completely misunderstood what was being shown in the industrial melanism example. Because there was a new selective pressure on the population of moths, caused by trees being more darkly coloured by soot, the bright coloured moths were more easily killed by predatory birds, and the mottled and dark ones were harder for the birds to find and kill, thus the population as a whole adapted to the environment, becomming darker than moths of that type were before hand. Speciation was not involved.


But I'm speaking here of something completely different than natural selection. I'm speaking of how we get speciation in the first instance.

Natural selection is how we get species, when coupled probably with reproductive isolation.



Without the genetic material, there is no speciation, no change -- gradual or otherwise.

Since new variation can be brought about by genetic mutation, this is false.


Genetic material does not fabricate itself

Mutations result in new genetic material. Chromosome cloning results in new genetic material, even entire genomes can be duplicated in a single generation and thus the genetic material is increased. Genes from other unrelated organisms can be incorporated into the genome by the genetic materials. And all fo these things can change and become completely different via mutation.


This is what we see in the fossil record,

No it isn't. At absolute best you can say that the fossil record shows nothing at all, not that it favours 'like producing like'. There are stages in the fossil record where there is simply nothing like the animals that are alive today, that alone cancels out the idea that like produces like. It's either useless and too spotty to support anything or it says what the people who actually study it say, but certainly doesn't say what you are saying.


We do not see things gradually turning into something else.

We see alleles changing their proportions in natural populations in response to selective pressure from the environment and resulting in speceis adapating to their environment, we see speciation, and we see mutations producing new genetic and phenotypic variability.


Everything is as it is, fully formed and complete.

Evolutionary theory states that all species will be 'fully formed and complete'. It does not state that there will be special 'transtional species' that exist in order to get 'complete' reptiles to turn into 'complete' birds. It states that all species, as observed in nature, are constantly changing in response to selection pressures. Every species is a 'transitional/incomplete' species in this sense, and equally every species is well adapted to the environment they find themselves in. You don't need half formed mutant freaks to have evolution.




posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Nygdan -- I know about natural selection and you don't have to teach me. I know the moths were already both here and depending on the environment one becomes populous. You act like I don't undrestand all these things. Really, I do. I am not a superstitious religious person who knows nothing, that you must explain every basic thing to me. Really. Let's just try to stick with this one thing we've been discussing, which is speciation -- how does it occur? I'm not trying to get out of answering anything you've put up, but rather to try to take the essence of your argument and try to present the essence of mine. Therefore, I'm not going to reply to all your comments because it would be too confusing, just this one below:

You said:

Natural selection is how we get species, when coupled probably with reproductive isolation.


So are you saying that a giraffe gets hungry, tries to reach the trees above, and causes DNA to rearrange itself in the eggs and sperm?

Exactly what do you mean? How does this happen? I have told you how I believe speciation occurs -- i.e. that the genetic material was put in the kind by the Creator in the beginning, and at the right time and place God Himself brings a species forth from the parent kind. If you don't agree with this, and you think evolution goes from simple to complex rather than the other way around, would you like to explain to me how this occurs?

I think of the two of us, your opinion is the one that's indefensible, unscientific, against nature, and against the laws of nature. The laws of thermodynamics say things break down and get more simple, not that things get greater and more complex.

Mutations are shown to be in every instance a destruction of genetic material, not a creation of genetic material.

For man to go into the lab and take DNA from one creature and move it to another creature is not evolution. That is recombination of DNA in the laboratory, and does not occur in nature. If it does occur in nature, would you be so kind as to give me an example of such?

You asked what I would consider a partially formed feather. I will tell you what I would not consider it to be -- down is not a partially formed feather. Down is down. And hair is also not a partially formed feather. Hair is hair.

A partially formed feather would be some useless blobby thing that was on its way to "evolving" as the gradualists insist it did. I want to see that. It's just laughable that this is what happened. When things are morphing they are "blobby." In other words, there are not an infinite number of changes within an organism that are all perfectly formed and complete in and of themselves. To get from here to there, there were morphing changes going on according to the gradualist evolutionists. I say it's utter craziness, but if that's what you insist happened then you must come up with one example. Just one. Otherwise, how can you keep saying I am the one who is "unscientific" ignoring the facts, all that stuff?

I want to see an example of evolution. That does not mean somebody's active imagination telling me that some bird was once upon a time some kind of dinosaur. If that's true, I want to see at least one dinosaur or even one reptile with just one scale turning into a feather.

We all know what your theories are. Your theories are that this came from that which came from that and that and that. But let's just see one tiny little example of some genetic material producing a change in some creature to produce a brain that wasn't there before or an eye that wasn't there before or legs where once there were fins, or wings where once there were arms (as in the dinosaurs). There should be many examples of reptiles with half formed wings. Where are these creatures -- eithe rin the fossil record or in nature today?

Answer: No place. Why? Because that's NOT HOW IT HAPPENED.


[edit on 21-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Resistance, if your mind is already made up, why do you continue to ask questions? Personally, I think it is so you can argue with whomever answers your questions. I have seen different people on several threads now try to enlighten you about science and every time you have totally refused to accept the facts when they were presented to you. Why are you so obdurate about science?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Resistance, if your mind is already made up, why do you continue to ask questions? Personally, I think it is so you can argue with whomever answers your questions. I have seen different people on several threads now try to enlighten you about science and every time you have totally refused to accept the facts when they were presented to you. Why are you so obdurate about science?


I don't think I'm obdurate about science. I just think I have some different opinions than some of the other people on these threads. If you don't like to discuss things with people who differ with your opinion nobody's forcing you to.

I think science is great. I don't think that all that passes for science IS science, but rather pseudoscience, or as the Bible calls it "science so-called."

That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Here is a posting I made on a different thread about Intelligent Design:

While I agree that evolution doesn't explain everything about life--most especially its origin, it does explain all variations since the inception of life that have been examined. The history of life on planet Earth goes back so far in time that mankind may never uncover all the facts; however, that in no way invalidates the theory of evolution. Given what we do know about the evolution of life on this planet, it is almost inconceivable to think that what we don't know did not undergo the same processes all the way back to the very beginning. Further, we are only just now beginning to delve into and understand the evolution of DNA, RNA, and the other ingredients of life as we know it. There is no good reason to abandon evolution in favor of something else or to give something else an essentially co-equal status alongside evolution--a status like that must be earned and as yet ID has not done so.

If science is anything close to correct--and nothing so far has been able to refute it--then somehow all life is essentially an evolution of hydrogen anyway. We, all of us, as well as everything else we know was cooked up in the interior of stars and dispersed when those stars exploded. Only to be gathered up again by gravity and cooked again and again. Somehow, in the fullness of time those repeated cookings & explosions made all the elements heavier than hydrogen. The parallel emergence of life from the debris ejected by those explosions is not so strange as to be inconceivable--we just aren't wise enough yet to understand.

Don't think I don't believe in GOD because of what I posted above, because I do. The prevailing theory of the beginning of the universe, the so-called "Big Bang" theory is practically inconceivable to me. Essentially the theory states that the entire universe sprang from an inconceviably small point of something and was initially without matter or any of the forms of energy we recognize and as it began to expand & cool the universe adopted all the immutable laws of the universe. And yet, in spite of my personal diffulcty in grasping the concept, if the theory is true, the laws which now prevail throughout the universe could have taken on almost an infinite number of forms, most of which would have totally precluded life. The fact that we are here at all is as easily explained by divine intervention as anything else--and believing in such is much more satisfying. I believe; therefore, that GOD created the conditions & rules under which the universe operates when the universe was created and those conditions & rules absolutely favor the emergence of life in every place and under all conditions that don't absolutely forbid it.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Nygdan -- I know about natural selection

Then why do you consistenly use it wrong and misapply its implications?




So are you saying that a giraffe gets hungry, tries to reach the trees above, and causes DNA to rearrange itself in the eggs and sperm?

See above.


that the genetic material was put in the kind by the Creator in the beginning

Then why do they not have this information now? None of these organisms have the genomes of thousands and thousands of other animals, and none of these supposed 'kinds' are defined by having a massive set of untapped genes in common.


If you don't agree with this, and you think evolution goes from simple to complex

Evolution goes hither and thither, not from simple to complex or complex to simple or anything like that. It 'goes' where selection and variation lead it, as with the industrial melanism example in moths.


The laws of thermodynamics say things break down and get more simple, not that things get greater and more complex.

The laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with evolution and evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The mere fact that lots of animals have gotten more complex over time is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.


Mutations are shown to be in every instance a destruction of genetic material, not a creation of genetic material.

Absolutely false.


For man to go into the lab and take DNA from one creature and move it to another creature is not evolution.

I am not talking about genetic engineering when talking about the above.


That is recombination of DNA in the laboratory, and does not occur in nature.

Incorrect. Man effects genetic recombination by taking advantage of viruses, which can and will insert their own genetic material into the genome of a host organism. Bacteria and other pathogens can also take up genetic material from one organism, infect a different one, and insert those genes into the new host. Genetic Recombination happens in nature, its called Lateral Transfer.




You asked what I would consider a partially formed feather. I will tell you what I would not consider it to be

How about you tell me what would qualify as a partially formed feather, would that not be more condusive to this consideration?

-- down is not a partially formed feather.

There are organisms in that list that do not have down feathers. However, you have no reason to not accept a downy feather, which is a feather that lacks barbules and hooklets, as a partial feather, it is a sensible step in the formation of a complex feather with hooklets and barbules from a skin structure without them.

And hair is also not a partially formed feather.

None of the organisms in that list have hair. Look at the data. That dino-fuzz can't be confused with down, and its also not at all like hair. Its precisely what one would expect in a transition from scales to feathers. Its also the earliest stage that Prum and Brush surmised from their their studies, wherein they 'shut down' the genes that control feather development in stages.


A partially formed feather would be some useless blobby thing that was on its way to "evolving" as the gradualists insist it did.

No, it wouldn't. A primitve proto-feather would be what Prum and others have hypothesized about. There are other alternatives too, it just so happens that their ideas are the ones that panned out. There is no logical reason to think it'd be a 'blobby thing', and it certainly wouldn't be useless, whatever it was, because we are talking about it forming from the action of natural selection upon populational variation that increases fitness, not to make stuff that might one day, generations later, possibly be useful.


When things are morphing they are "blobby."

Evolution is not a michael jackson video.


In other words, there are not an infinite number of changes within an organism that are all perfectly formed and complete in and of themselves.

Evolution does not suggest that there is.


To get from here to there, there were morphing changes going on according to the gradualist evolutionists.

No. There was selection acting upon variation.


how can you keep saying I am the one who is "unscientific" ignoring the facts, all that stuff?

Because you are being unscientific and ignoring everything. You wanted protofeathers in non-birds. You were given a series of animals that are increasingly birdlike and that have first the very proto-feathers predicted from ontological-genetic studies, and more and more feather like structures in the more and more advanced representatives, ultimately having flight feathers in dinosaurs themselves.


I want to see an example of evolution.

Then look at any population who's allele frequencies are changing over time.



If that's true, I want to see at least one dinosaur or even one reptile with just one scale turning into a feather.

Again, like I said before, there are no fossils that have fossilized scales that change into feathers right before your eyes, on command, for everyone that wants to see them. You want a living dinosaur actually be running around infront of you, jump into the air, and grow wings, feathered wings. Sorry, not gonna happen. Know what else is not gonna happen? You're not going to see the stuff that makes up gravity with your own eyes. You're not going to see a proton pushing against a neutron and having clouds of dispersed electrons flitting about it with your eyes, and you're not even going to get to see the actual transition states in chemical reactions, nor even the phsyical structure of the bomnds that hold compounds together. Its all theoretical. But apples will still fall from their trees and medicines will still be able to be manufactured, despite your not having these observations.


We all know what your theories are.

No, you apparently don't, infact, know or understand evolutionary theory, the evidence that supports it, nor what its implications are.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Something else for you to read and ponder Resistance:

n his highly influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," science philosopher Thomas Kuhn presented the idea that science is not a gradual progression toward truth, but a series of insurgencies, with scientific theories constantly usurping one another.

That is sometimes true. And proponents of intelligent design love Kuhn's argument.

They see intelligent design (often called ID) as a revolutionary new science and themselves as revolutionaries. They envision toppling Darwinian evolution – once a revolutionary idea itself – and erecting in its place a theory about life that allows for supernatural explanations, a theory that makes God, or some entity very much like him, not just possible but necessary.

But in order to attract converts and win over critics, a new scientific theory must be enticing. It must offer something that its competitors lack. That something may be simplicity, which was one of the main reasons the Sun-centered model of the solar system was adopted over the Earth-centered one centuries. Or it could be sheer explanatory power, which was what allowed evolution to become a widely accepted theory with no serious detractors among reputable scientists.

So what does ID offer? What can it explain that evolution can't?

To answer this, it is necessary to examine the two main arguments—irreducible complexity and specified complexity—that ID proponents use to support their claim that a Supreme Being is responsible for many or all aspects of life.

Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity asserts that certain biochemical systems in nature contain parts that are too well matched to be products of evolution.

Every part of an irreducibly complex system is necessary: take away even one, and the entire system will no longer work. Because their parts are so intricate and so interdependent, such systems could not possibly have been the result of evolution, ID supporters argue.

Irreducible complexity's main proponent is Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Among the systems that Behe claims are irreducibly complex are the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic whip-like structure that some bacteria use to swim, and the cascade of proteins that make up the human blood-clotting system.

Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," Darwin wrote.

Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community.

To understand why, it is important to remember that Behe's main argument is that in an irreducibly complex system, every part is vital to the system's overall operation.

A necessary—and often unstated—flipside to this is that if an irreducibly complex system contains within it a smaller set of parts that could be used for some other function, then the system was never really irreducibly complex to begin with.

It's like saying in physics that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of matter only to discover, as physicists have, that atoms are themselves made up of even smaller and more fundamental components.

This flipside makes the concept of irreducible complexity testable, giving it a scientific virtue that other aspects of ID lack.

"The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Rhode Island. "The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed."

Viewed this way, all of the systems that Behe claims to be irreducibly complex really aren't.

A subset of the bacterial flagellum proteins, for example, are used by other bacteria to inject toxins into other cells and several of the proteins in the human blood-clotting system are believed to be modified forms of proteins found in the digestive system.

Evolution takes pieces and parts and re-uses them.

Specified complexity

The second major argument for intelligent design comes from William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based Christian think tank that serves as the nerve center for the ID movement.

Dembski argues that nature is rife with examples of non-random patterns of information that he calls "complex specified information," or CSI for short.

To qualify as CSI, the information must be both complex and specified. The letter "A," for example, is specific but not complex. A string of random letters such as "slfkjwer," on the other hand, is complex but not necessarily specific. A Shakespearean sonnet, however, is both complex and specific.

An example of CSI from nature is DNA, the molecule found in all cells that contains the genetic instructions for life. DNA is made up of four repeating chemical bases arranged into complimentary pairs. The bases can be thought of as "letters" in a four-letter alphabet and can be strung together to form genes, which can be thought of as the "words" that tell the cell what proteins to make.

The human genome is made up of some 3 billion DNA base pairs and contains about 25,000 genes. DNA is obviously complex. The fact that humans always give birth to humans and not chimpanzees or naked mole rats shows that DNA is also specific.

The fact that CSI exists in nature is evidence for design because intelligence is necessary to produce CSI, Dembski says. This is the part of Dembski's argument that many scientists have trouble with.

The nylon problem

There is a way to settle this, however, because like Behe's irreducible complexity, the concept of specified complexity can also be tested.

"If Dembski were right, then a new gene with new information conferring a brand new function on an organism could never come into existence without a designer because a new function requires complex specified information," Miller said.

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.

The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from?

There are three possibilities:

The nylonase gene was present in the bacterial genome all along.
The CSI for nylonase was inserted into the bacteria by a Supreme Being.
The ability to digest nylon arose spontaneously as a result of mutation. Because it allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new resource, the ability stuck and was eventually passed on to future generations.
Apart from simply being the most reasonable explanation, there are two other reasons that most scientists prefer the last option, which is an example of Darwinian natural selection.

First, hauling around a nylonase gene before the invention of nylon is at best useless to the bacteria; at worst, it could be harmful or lethal. Secondly, the nylonase enzyme is less efficient than the precursor protein it's believed to have developed from. Thus, if nylonase really was designed by a Supreme Being, it wasn't done very intelligently.

‘Death of science'

After examining ID's two main arguments, the answers to the original questions—what does ID offer? And what can ID explain that evolution can't?—is not much and nothing, leading scientists say.

"The most basic problem [with ID] is that it's utterly boring," said William Provine, a science historian at Cornell University in New York. "Everything that's complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it."

Evolution was and still is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity.

ID offers nothing comparable. It begins with complexity—a Supreme Being—and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all, scientists say. They're more like last resorts. And, scientists argue, there is a danger in pretending that ID belongs next to evolution in textbooks.

"It doesn't add anything to science to introduce the idea that God did it," Provine told LiveScience. Intelligent design "would become the death of science if it became a part of science."



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Nygdan -- You said:

No, it wouldn't. A primitve proto-feather would be what Prum and others have hypothesized about. There are other alternatives too, it just so happens that their ideas are the ones that panned out. There is no logical reason to think it'd be a 'blobby thing', and it certainly wouldn't be useless, whatever it was, because we are talking about it forming from the action of natural selection upon populational variation that increases fitness, not to make stuff that might one day, generations later, possibly be useful.



You are saying that while a leg turns into a wing that it will always be useful? While a bud turns into an eye it will always be useful? While a scale turns into a feather it will always be useful, useful and fully formed complete something or other?

Can you give an example of this, please? I cannot picture this. I know the pictures we see depicting the changes in evolution always show complete creatures but the implication is they are morphing into the one above. All I'm asking for is some kind of demonstration of that morphing.

Why am I not getting through here? Have you ever seen pictures on tv of one face morphing into another? Okay. Now imagine a leg morphing into a wing, and this is taking place over billions of years. During that time when the leg is turning into a wing (which is what the evolutionists say is what happened with the reptiles turning into birds), that leg is going to shorten up, get thicker, completely change its shape, the bones are going to get all different, and it's going to start growing feathers, developing muscles of a type for flight, etcetera. All I'm asking is for you to show me this morphing. A morphing is an interim change from something into something, and while it's changing from one thing to the other it will be in fact "blobby" -- like plastic or clay or whatever, because evolution teaches that this happens very, very gradually over billions of years. I'm asking you to capture a moment in time of that billions of years, give me a snapshot of this morphing that's supposedly happening.

Now do you understand what I'm saying?

Morphology -- The biological study of the form and structure of organisms.

And these are rhetorical questions BTW. I consider this a debate. I am 100 percent certain of my position here that I am right. I am trying to share my understanding and enlightenment with you, who I believe to be really, really deceived and somewhat blinded to what to me appears simple truth. I'm not trying to be rude, but rather to make the point that I'm not engaging in this discussion with you because I think I'm so uneducated and stupid that I need you to explain things to me. On the contrary.

Forums are to share ideas. You and I may never change our minds one smitch, but those who are watching this transpire may find something of use to augment their thinking on this subject.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
You are saying that while a leg turns into a wing that it will always be useful?

As is evidenced by the fossils that have forearms that are becoming increasingly wing like, yes.


While a bud turns into an eye it will always be useful?

As is evidenced by the biological data, yes, primitive organisms with primitive eyes, even very primitive eye spots that are just barely sensitive to light, make use of them.


While a scale turns into a feather it will always be useful, useful and fully formed complete something or other?

Indeed, why not? Thy can provide insultation, communication, species identification, etc etc.


creatures but the implication is they are morphing into the one above.

you have misunderstood the graphics then. Nothing is 'morphing', ie in some sort of transient, useless stage on the way towards a future useful one. Natural selection would weed out any such thing, and only something that is advantagous will be preserved, indeed, propagated.


All I'm asking for is some kind of demonstration of that morphing.

And what would you consider evidence for that?


Why am I not getting through here?

Because what you are trying to say is incorrect.


Have you ever seen pictures on tv of one face morphing into another?

This is not analagous to evolution.

that leg is going to shorten up, get thicker, completely change its shape, the bones are going to get all different, and it's going to start growing feathers, developing muscles of a type for flight, etcetera.

When you look at the fossil record, you find organisms that have these features. Increasing limb length (not decreasing, increaseing), more complex sking structures, from proto-feathers to full flight feathers, wrist bones that become modified and permit folding of the arm, even the attachement sites of the muscles can be found and their realtive strengths estimated. There is nothing 'unfit' about the process.


All I'm asking is for you to show me this morphing.

Again, since a fossil is the remains of a dead animal, I can't show you it doing anything, other than lying there in rock or on a museum wall. Its certainly not going to morph ala tv special effects into anything.


A morphing is an interim change

And organisms are not interim. Every organism has to live in its world as a 'fully formed' and fit organism, else, it will die and its type will be weeded out. Only the fit survive.

from something into something, and while it's changing from one thing to the other it will be in fact "blobby"

This expectation is silly and unrealistic.

because evolution teaches that this happens very, very gradually over billions of years.

No, evolutionary theory does not state this.

I'm asking you to capture a moment in time of that billions of years, give me a snapshot of this morphing that's supposedly happening.

You are saying that nature had to follow, in changing a lizard like animal into a bird, the same sequence of changes that a computer would put together when 'morphing' a lizard shape into a bird shape. Thats not how nature operates. Nature doesn't know what the end points are, it only knows that if something isn't fit it doesn't produce many offspring. The path that evolution ends up taking is not going to be the same that a special effects technician would take. Evolution does it be 'making' 'fully formed' and 'complete' organisms at each and every step. So the 'snapshot', which is what a fossil is, is not necessarily bound to be the same as a snapshot from a graphical morphing movie.

Now do you understand what I'm saying?
I've understood from the start what you've been saying and its

  1. Wrong
  2. Silly and
  3. Ignorant of how evolution even claims to operate



Morphology -- The biological study of the form and structure of organisms.

I'm sorry to tell you that morphology does not consist of making TV-Movie special effects type animations. Morphology is not the study of tv Morphing.


I consider this a debate.

This is not a debate. This is a discussion site. If you are looking for a debate, then you should go to the debate forum here.

I am trying to share my understanding and enlightenment with you,

How kind and benevolent. And here I am trying to understand what the evidence tells us, rather than listening toy your enlightened self.

who I believe to be really, really deceived and somewhat blinded to what to me appears simple truth.

Forums are to share ideas.

This forum is a discussion forum, its not a soapbox for people to sprout their supposedly learned opinions.


[edit on 21-10-2005 by Nygdan]

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
You are saying that while a leg turns into a wing that it will always be useful?


Nygdan: As is evidenced by the fossils that have forearms that are becoming increasingly wing like, yes.


These forearms that are becoming "increasingly wing-like" are useful? At every stage from the time they are an arm until they finally become a wing they will always be useful? And all this WILL happen gradually? I just don't see how you can see this. When what they have is neither a wing nor an arm how can it be useful?



While a bud turns into an eye it will always be useful?


Nygdan: As is evidenced by the biological data, yes, primitive organisms with primitive eyes, even very primitive eye spots that are just barely sensitive to light, make use of them.

Then they are not evolving. They are eyes that are what they are. What if they were eyes that were not sensitive to light at all, could see absolutelely nothing, because they had not reached that stage of development yet to where they could see something? What is useful about that?



creatures but the implication is they are morphing into the one above.


Nygdan: you have misunderstood the graphics then. Nothing is 'morphing', ie in some sort of transient, useless stage on the way towards a future useful one. Natural selection would weed out any such thing, and only something that is advantagous will be preserved, indeed, propagated.

So when we see these pictures of similar animals lined up, you're saying they change in this way, in jerks and jumps?Red


All I'm asking for is some kind of demonstration of that morphing.

Nygdan: And what would you consider evidence for that?

Something that hasn't jerked or leaped ahead to a fully formed organ or limb, but is doing what the gradualist evolutionists claim it does -- change gradually, very, very slowly over billions of years. What you are describing is more like punctuated equilibrium than gradualism.


Why am I not getting through here?

Nygdan: Because what you are trying to say is incorrect.

What's not correct? That things do not evolve gradually? I thought you were the one saying that. Now you're saying things are evolving in spurts, always useful, which means everything is popping out fully formed. If this is what happens, it means genetic material is there already, and that's what I've been saying all along, that for speciation the genetic material in fact IS already there because God put it there, NOT because it just accidentally rearranged itself because, say, the leaves were too high in the trees.


Have you ever seen pictures on tv of one face morphing into another?

Nygdan: This is not analagous to evolution.

Yeah, it is. Gradualism evolution, that's exactly how it is. Can you tell me someone who agrees with your definition of gradualism, that something that's evolving is "always useful," and does not change in a blurred sort of way but in jerks and stops and starts going from one useful stage to another instantaneously, with no blurring in between?



that leg is going to shorten up, get thicker, completely change its shape, the bones are going to get all different, and it's going to start growing feathers, developing muscles of a type for flight, etcetera.

Nygdan: When you look at the fossil record, you find organisms that have these features. Increasing limb length (not decreasing, increaseing), more complex sking structures, from proto-feathers to full flight feathers, wrist bones that become modified and permit folding of the arm, even the attachement sites of the muscles can be found and their realtive strengths estimated. There is nothing 'unfit' about the process.

Yeah. One time somebody told me the ostrich is evolving into a type of horse, that its wings are going to grow down to the earth and become legs. So I guess we'd then have dinosaur arms that turned into wings, that then turned back into forearms again, or rather front legs to reach the ground so it could become some kind of a horse. Yes? Do you believe the mammals came from the birds? Where did the mammals come from?


All I'm asking is for you to show me this morphing.

Nygdan: Again, since a fossil is the remains of a dead animal, I can't show you it doing anything, other than lying there in rock or on a museum wall. Its certainly not going to morph ala tv special effects into anything.
It doesn't matter if something is alive or dead. If it's in a morphing stage that stage should be evident for ions. Forearms that are turning into wings should be everywhere for us to look at. So where are they?

A morphing is an interim change

Nygdan: And organisms are not interim. Every organism has to live in its world as a 'fully formed' and fit organism, else, it will die and its type will be weeded out. Only the fit survive.

Well, we certainly do agree on that score. Every organism must be fully formed. And of course the Creator made them that way. The Creator made fully formed adults in the beginning and put the genetic material in them to reproduce more of their kind. He certainly wasn't going to create babies that had to be fed with a medicine dropper or eggs that had to be put under an incubator!


from something into something, and while it's changing from one thing to the other it will be in fact "blobby"

Nygdan: This expectation is silly and unrealistic.

I agree, but how else can a forearm turn into a wing? There has to be a place halfway where it's neither a forearm nor a wing but just a thingamajig.


because evolution teaches that this happens very, very gradually over billions of years.

Nygdan: No, evolutionary theory does not state this.

It's called "gradualism" for a reason, unless you are speaking of punctuated equilibrium or pans spermia. And all the evolutionists say the most important ingredient to produce evolution is time-- lots and lots and lots of time.


I'm asking you to capture a moment in time of that billions of years, give me a snapshot of this morphing that's supposedly happening.


Nygdan: You are saying that nature had to follow, in changing a lizard like animal into a bird, the same sequence of changes that a computer would put together when 'morphing' a lizard shape into a bird shape. Thats not how nature operates. Nature doesn't know what the end points are, it only knows that if something isn't fit it doesn't produce many offspring. The path that evolution ends up taking is not going to be the same that a special effects technician would take. Evolution does it be 'making' 'fully formed' and 'complete' organisms at each and every step. So the 'snapshot', which is what a fossil is, is not necessarily bound to be the same as a snapshot from a graphical morphing movie.

Okay. So actually you do believe in punctuated equilibrium then, not gradualism. Is that not true?

Now do you understand what I'm saying?
Nygdan: I've understood from the start what you've been saying and its

  1. Wrong
  2. Silly and
  3. Ignorant of how evolution even claims to operate


Well, which evolution are you referring to when you say "evolution" -- of the three I just mentioned? And if it's gradualism, then tell me, how long does it take for a dinosaur's forearms to turn into wings, and if they don't morph, can you describe for me the process that would happen?


Morphology -- The biological study of the form and structure of organisms.

Nygdan: I'm sorry to tell you that morphology does not consist of making TV-Movie special effects type animations. Morphology is not the study of tv Morphing.
I just copied the definition out of the dictionary. Can you tell me the morphology of a dinosaur's forearm becoming a wing? Or a scale becoming a feather? And explain to me why we don't see this happening either in the fossil record or in the real world of nature today?

I consider this a debate.

Nygdan: This is not a debate. This is a discussion site. If you are looking for a debate, then you should go to the debate forum here.

Well, I'm on one side and you're on the other. I'm completely on the Creation side and you are completely on the evolution side (though I'm not sure what kind of evolution you are advocating). So I hope to convince you that I'm right. Is that a bad thing?


I am trying to share my understanding and enlightenment with you,

Nygdan: How kind and benevolent. And here I am trying to understand what the evidence tells us, rather than listening toy your enlightened self.

I'm just as interested in the evidence as you are. I'm just trying to get you to look at that evidence in a different way.


who I believe to be really, really deceived and somewhat blinded to what to me appears simple truth.

Forums are to share ideas.

Nygdan: This forum is a discussion forum, its not a soapbox for people to sprout their supposedly learned opinions.

I don't see you being open to any discussion with me at all. You are just flat out opposed to everything I've said. So I'm using your own words now to convince you that, according to what you say, you in fact do not even believe in gradual evolution yourself.





[edit on 22-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68


n his highly influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," science philosopher Thomas Kuhn presented the idea that science is not a gradual progression toward truth, but a series of insurgencies, with scientific theories constantly usurping one another.

That is sometimes true. And proponents of intelligent design love Kuhn's argument.

They see intelligent design (often called ID) as a revolutionary new science and themselves as revolutionaries. They envision toppling Darwinian evolution – once a revolutionary idea itself – and erecting in its place a theory about life that allows for supernatural explanations, a theory that makes God, or some entity very much like him, not just possible but necessary.



Astronomer, please refrain from posting material that does not belong to you without proper citations.

msnbc.msn.com...


In his highly influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," science philosopher Thomas Kuhn presented the idea that science is not a gradual progression toward truth, but a series of insurgencies, with scientific theories constantly usurping one another.

That is sometimes true. And proponents of intelligent design love Kuhn's argument.

They see intelligent design (often called ID) as a revolutionary new science and themselves as revolutionaries. They envision toppling Darwinian evolution – once a revolutionary idea itself – and erecting in its place a theory about life that allows for supernatural explanations, a theory that makes God, or some entity very much like him, not just possible but necessary.



Anyway, Resistance please stop misusing the second law of thermodynamics. It is called that for a reason, as it applies to thermodynamics. Otherwise it would be called the second law of everything. Keep in mind it only applies to closed systems.

en.wikipedia.org...


The second law of thermodynamics is a law of thermodynamics that states that all work tends towards the production of greater entropy over time. Another way of saying this (known as the Clausius formulation) is that it is impossible to construct a perfect refrigerator. (This is why refrigerators always require an external power source.) An equivalent statement, known as the Kelvin-Planck formulation, is that "It is impossible for any cyclic process to occur whose sole effect is the extraction of heat from a reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work." (If the reader is aware of the concept of heat engines, please understand that heat engines work by allowing two heat reservoirs of different temperatures to come in equilibrium with each other, and as such they do not violate the 2nd law.)

(Note: the second law of thermodynamics is not a result of the expansion of the universe - in fact it applies to any closed system.)



Now for a good analogy as to why your "impossible to create new dna" scenario is false.

DNA is very much like binary only much more complex. When you say that DNA can never produce new information it is much like saying that binary can only be used to run calculators. With just a simple system of ons and offs we have created huge networks of computers that make things like this forum possible. If we can do that with just two numbers, imagine what is possible with all the combinations possible in DNA.

It's not so much creating new information, but using existing information in new ways.

Edit: Here you go, a wing turning into an arm.



[edit on 22-10-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Astronomer, please refrain from posting material that does not belong to you without proper citations.

msnbc.msn.com...


My bad LeftBehind, I apologize. I looked for that damn link and couldn't find it otherwise I would have just cited the link rather than posted the article.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Astronomer, please refrain from posting material that does not belong to you without proper citations.

msnbc.msn.com...


My bad LeftBehind, I apologize. I looked for that damn link and couldn't find it otherwise I would have just cited the link rather than posted the article.



I got jumped on by one of the mods last night for doing that, and I was just in the middle of putting up my post, and when I went to cut and paste the title of the tract I put up the mod copied my post and accused me of plagiarizing in front of everyone and fined me 50 points besides. I got all done with my post, saw her u2u and was told I'd plagiarized. So I went back, put the thing in a box, but that's all I did. I already had it in quotes, with the link to the site where I got it, the title of the tract and even a brief description of the guy who put up the website where the material was. I still got savaged. And I've never plagiarized. I usually don't have time to go pulling up stuff other than a few links here and there. And I'd already put the same information up in a previous post, just told what it said, and gave the link. But everyone was hounding me for proof, proof, so I went ahead and posted the whole quote because it was just a tract and short. The only thing I did wrong was not put the thing in a box, which is only a matter of style, not a capital crime that I can see.

And what's worse is the Pro-Freemason thread I was posting on already had between six to eight people on the opposing side to mine, and there was only one other person posting with me. So some moderator came swooping in to rescue the poor babies.

For being a conspiracy site, ATS is pretty PC if you ask me.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Dear Left-Behind -- Re the penguin's wing turning into an arm, do you think it's going to end up turning into a monkey, a bear, or what? Nygdan and I were talking about how the evolutionists believe the dinosaurs became birds, and that their little forelegs turned into wings and their large hind legs shriveleld up to be the sticklegs of birds.

Whew! That's such a lot of changes -- to go from an arm to a wing back to a leg/arm.

Oh, well. Actually, I kind of like the penguin just the way it is. I don't see anything wrong with it, and don't see how its design could be improved at all. If its wing turned into an arm it wouldn't be able to use it like a big fin for swimming, and then it would have to grow a big tail for swimming. So are you sure there's anything wrong wiht the penguin's wings?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Actually resistance I forgot to post the
after the penguin picture. However it is an excellent example of adaptation. What was once a wing is now more of a flipper. I think the penguin is an excellent example of a so-called in between species. We may never see what comes next and so we can't see how it could possibly be a better design.

However for all we know in millions of years they could be small dolphin like creatures even better adapted to swimming.


It seems to me that you would be better served trying to prove creation instead of railing against evolution.

Here's a thread for just that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After all, you may trip up some with semantics, but gradualism as well as puncuated equilibrium are both evolution. They are both open to debate, so they don't really count as different types of evolution, more like two possible mechanisms of the observed data.

Evolution is fact. The mechanisms of evolution are indeed open to debate, just try and keep that in mind instead of treating them like a strawman.

Problems with the proposed mechanisms does not get rid of the fact that evolution is observed today and in the fossil record.



[edit on 22-10-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Astronomer -- If you'd read more into the thread you'd see that I don't disagree with micro-evolution or speciation. But speciation (or micro-evolution) is not evolution.

And even speciation or micro-evolution does not happen the way the gradualists say it does. The new species are already contained within the genes of the kind or parent already. When the species emerge there is a LOSS of genetic material. Nothing is added. It is divided off and separated from the parent kind. Evolution teaches that things go from simple to complex and new genetic material fashions itselfall by itself-- that somenow the DNA strands know the girraff is hungry and his neck is too short so it starts making new DNA for longer necks.

I'm not creating strawmen. I DID explain what happens from the point of view of creationism. My model fits what we see around us. The evolution model does not fit what we see around us -- i.e. fully formed and complete creatures. Nygdan claims that over long periods of time many minute changes occur resulting in the kind of startlingl transformations that will result in a dinosaure turning into a bird. He claims the reason we don't see any of the intermediary or transitional forms of this new bird (no half formed feathers or wings) is because whatever creature we have at the moment is already complete.

So go back and read the discussion. What do you think? Could you provide a better explaination of the minute changes that occur during gradual evolution? Can you tell me what happened when the dinosaur became a bird? How did the scales turn into feathers? How did the big bulky back legs become long and spindly? And how did the short forearms get huge in proportion to the legs and turn into wings? How did all this happen without any "blobbiness" or "thingamajig" occurring in between this metamorphisis?

For example, when the milkweed caterpiller hangs in its pupa, it kind of turns to jelly, and the whole entire body rearranges itself into a completely different creature. Something like this will have to happen to a dinosaur as it turns into a bird, but this will be occurring over billions of years (right?) Or millions? Whatever. Anyway, we should be able to see the shifting around and transitions while this occurs.

But of course we don't see this. Speciation occurs instantaneously because the new species, type or breed are already contained wthin the genes of the parent kind.

For example, my Maine Coon looked like she could have won a prize in a cat contest for purebred Maine Coon cats but her mother was a calico and we don't know who the father was.

[edit on 22-10-2005 by resistance]

[edit on 22-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   


that somenow the DNA strands know the girraff is hungry and his neck is too short so it starts making new DNA for longer necks.


Resistance do us all a favour and go read about the mechinisims of evolution.




A bad or loss of gene by mutation wont be permeated through-out the gene-pool, a crippled or less intellegent animal is sure to loose chances to mate to stronger healthy animals.Only when an advantage occurs by chance due to mutation is the gene spread through the gene-pool because animals with this advantagious gene are going to produce more offspring, but this of course is the basics of evolution and the fact I have to explain this to you shows how little you have reasearched into the subject


^^ by me in a previous post in this thread

The girraff DNA is static once the animal is formed,mutations occur by chance during repoduction.People vary in height and girraf neck lenght varies to naturally, the one's with the longer necks will do better (reach more food) and pass on there long neck gene, girrafs once had short necks but they found a niche in the eco-system and exploited it gradually becoming bigger as the taller animals done better and mated more.



[edit on 22-10-2005 by Merkeva]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Merkeva: You said:

The girraff DNA is static once the animal is formed,mutations occur by chance during repoduction. People vary in height and girraf neck lenght varies to naturally, the one's with the longer necks will do better (reach more food) and pass on there long neck gene, girrafs once had short necks but they found a niche in the eco-system and exploited it gradually becoming bigger as the taller animals done better and mated more.


I agree there will be natural variety in body types. But it is limited within a range. Any mutations that will occur will be harmful. Any organisms that are born with mutated genes usually die or are stillborn.

Therefore, the natural variations are just that, natural variations, and will never result in a dramatic change in the creature. Any dramatic changes are the result of speciation in the kind, and even here we are limited as to how far the changes can go and they won't be straying too far away from the parent kind or genus.

I agree that natural selection will determine, say, if white or brown moths get to be more or less prolific depending on the camoflage background of their environment. But the brown or white moths are still brown or white moths.

This is why you don't see any morphing of creatures, except for the butterfly, and it morphs in front of our eyes -- kind of one of God's little miracles to show us how amazing He is.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   


I agree there will be natural variety in body types. But it is limited within a range.


That wasn't my point...




Any mutations that will occur will be harmful. Any organisms that are born with mutated genes usually die or are stillborn.


This statement is totally wrong.My friend has webed feet,a mutation and it is in no way harmful to him at all, he was not still born.





Therefore, the natural variations are just that, natural variations, and will never result in a dramatic change in the creature.


Replace "variations" with "mutations" and "never" with "sometimes".




I agree that natural selection will determine, say, if white or brown moths get to be more or less prolific depending on the camoflage background of their environment


Thats nice.So why cant it determine the lenght of an animals neck or any other feature?




This is why you don't see any morphing of creatures, except for the butterfly, and it morphs in front of our eyes -- kind of one of God's little miracles to show us how amazing He is.


Only butterflys? Im pretty sure other animals go through morphogenic larval stages..and yes God is amazing I mean who else could programme a system such as evolution ?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   


I agree there will be natural variety in body types. But it is limited within a range.


Merkeva: That wasn't my point...

But it's a good point.


Any mutations that will occur will be harmful. Any organisms that are born with mutated genes usually die or are stillborn.


Merkeva: This statement is totally wrong.My friend has webed feet,a mutation and it is in no way harmful to him at all, he was not still born.

Everybody has webbed feet. Your friend may have them more than others, so it's a matter of degree.



Therefore, the natural variations are just that, natural variations, and will never result in a dramatic change in the creature.


Merkeva: Replace "variations" with "mutations" and "never" with "sometimes".



Mutations are always harmful. They are sometimes not fatal, but they are never an improvement. When genes are damaged or lost, the results are harmful. In speciation, genetic material that's already there emerges, and the new species is "specialized" - where you get the word "species" from. So because it's special it has less genetic material, it's more specialized. Doctors in medicine specialize or isolate themselves to one branch of medicine rather than take on the whole shebang. Same with species. They branch off from the parent kind. It happens suddenly, not over billions of years. It happens when God pulls the trigger so to speak.





I agree that natural selection will determine, say, if white or brown moths get to be more or less prolific depending on the camoflage background of their environment


Merkeva: Thats nice.So why cant it determine the lenght of an animals neck or any other feature?

Because the moths were there in the beginning. The white moths didn't turn brown because the Industrial Revolution made smoke and soot and made the buildings go from light colored to dark colored. There were already two different kinds of moths flying around. But when the buildings started to get darker, the darker moths fared better than the light ones did.



This is why you don't see any morphing of creatures, except for the butterfly, and it morphs in front of our eyes -- kind of one of God's little miracles to show us how amazing He is.


Merkeva: Only butterflys? Im pretty sure other animals go through morphogenic larval stages..and yes God is amazing I mean who else could programme a system such as evolution ?

Well, God didn't program evolution. He just made everything the way it is, and as I say he put the species within the kinds, which we might refer to as "micro-evolution" and some people mistake for evolution -- (evolution meaning new genetic material is formed and simple creatures become more and more complex over ions of time, and plants turn into fish turn into reptiles turn into birds turn into mammals turn into people.)


I'm glad you agree that God is awesome.






[edit on 22-10-2005 by resistance]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join