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.

 

One Less Argument For Creationists: Development Of New Species Observed

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by marsvoltafan74
 


Individual organisms do not evolve, populations evolve. If there was a population of mules that could breed and produce offspring, you could then have evolution. The production of a mule from a horse and a donkey is simply Hybridization.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
This means nothing.


Thank you. I'll alert the Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology and instruct them to have the paper removed from the archives because you've totally nailed it.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The 'Journal' seems to like these kind of hit pieces... amazing what scientific-politically correct stuff gets past peer-review these days.


Misusing Protistan Examples to Propagate Myths about Intelligent Design


Michael J. Behe*
The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology recently published several papers from a workshop sponsored by the International Society of Protistologists entitled “Horizontal Gene Transfer and Phylogenetic Evolution Debunk Intelligent Design.” So here we have a respected scientific society, presumably planning a workshop months in advance, and finally laying out their considered case for why intelligent design fails. As you might imagine, I was most anxious to read about it. Unfortunately, rather than scholarly papers, the manuscripts read like press releases from the National Center for (Darwinian) Science Education. So the introductory essay (1) by Avelina Espinosa tells us that ID has “creationist beginnings”, claims that I say “evolution” is “impossible”, and places in my mouth the phrase “design creationism” (I have never uttered that phrase except to disparage it). Blah, blah, blah. About as much scholarship as you’d get from a typical politician.

The first of the full articles (2) concerned itself mostly with common descent, which I have always said I think is correct, and which in any case is not an issue of intelligent design. Another article, however, briefly dealt with my case from The Edge of Evolution, that some adaptations are likely to require multiple mutations, and thus be very improbable.* In “Using Protistan Examples to Dispel the Myths of Intelligent Design” (3) University of Georgia Professor Mark Farmer and Wadsworth Center Dr. Andrea Habura start off sloppily: “According to Behe (2007), the odds that mutations required to impart chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium could arise naturally are so impossibly long that they lie beyond what he considers ”The Edge of Evolution.’” But the book clearly states that chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium did arise naturally, by Darwinian processes. I go on to argue it took very many malarial parasites to chance upon resistance, and that pointed to a limit for Darwinian evolution for more complex mutations, or for populations with smaller numbers than Plasmodium, but I clearly said the opposite of what Farmer and Habura (3) ascribe to me, that chloroquine resistance arose naturally. That doesn’t give a reader confidence that the authors concern themselves much with the details of an argument.

Farmer and Habura think I am wrong that multiple mutations were necessary in the protein PfCRT to confer chloroquine resistance on malaria. They think only one will suffice. What’s more, they claim there are experiments to show that. They cite two papers. (3,4) But neither paper even tries to test whether a single mutation in PfCRT confers chloroquine resistance. Lakshamana et al. (2005) show that if they remove one particular mutation (K76T) from a mutant protein that carried a half dozen or so other mutations (compared to the wild-type protein), the protein no longer confers chloroquine resistance. That experiment shows the K76T is necessary; however, it does not show it is sufficient by itself, as Farmer and Habura thought. The same goes for the second paper. In their methods section Jiang et al (2008) write that “Parasite 106/1K76 [a chloroquine-sensitive strain that does not have the K76T mutation] has six mutations found typically in Southeast Asian CQR parasite … except a key mutation at PfCRT 76 position.”) Thus both these papers show that K76T is necessary, but neither shows it to be sufficient. To do so one would have to test the K76T in the wild-type, unmutated background.


* Behe accepts common ancestry, believes the Earth/universe are billions of years old, and doesn't believe Genesis can be used to give an accurate scientific model for origins/evolution... IOW he's not a creationist, even though they focus on his work in the paper(s)



You can find David Tyler's comments on this at ARN (here)

Anyone who has read Behe's book and understands his analysis would be alerted at this point to a wearying straw man argument. If you are going to critique someone, you ought to, at least, be able to paraphrase their arguments correctly. One wonders why the workshop participants did not put the authors right. In addition, one wonders why the referees did not point out the need for correction.[...]





Here's the paper if anyone is interested: Using protistan examples to dispel the myths of intelligent design.


Abstract
In recent years the teaching of the religiously based philosophy of intelligent design (ID) has been proposed as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory. Advocates of ID are largely motivated by their opposition to naturalistic explanations of biological diversity, in accordance with their goal of challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism. Intelligent design has been embraced by a wide variety of creationists who promote highly questionable claims that purport to show the inadequacy of evolutionary theory, which they consider to be a threat to a theistic worldview. We find that examples from protistan biology are well suited for providing evidence of many key evolutionary concepts, and have often been misrepresented or roundly ignored by ID advocates. These include examples of adaptations and radiations that are said to be statistically impossible, as well as examples of speciation both in the laboratory and as documented in the fossil record. Because many biologists may not be familiar with the richness of the protist evolution dataset or with ID-based criticisms of evolution, we provide examples of current ID arguments and specific protistan counter-examples.


On topic:
Would be nice to get a defintion for "species" (I realize there are several; pick one) and an example of the "argument" 'creationists' now have one less of. Be as specific as you can/need to. While I'm not a creationist I'd be interested none-the-less.

Regards.






[edit on Sat May 15 2010 by Rren]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by trueperspective
 




NO serious Intelligent Design proponant OR Creationist has EVER denied that new SPECIES can come about by natural selection.


Try every single Creationist I've ever spoken to ever. I'm very glad that you are an open minded Creationism proponent who understands that Speciation occurs but every single creationist I've spoken to, up till now, has claimed that evolution only occurs within species.

Again thanks for being the most open minded one I've seen, maybe there's still hope for the world.

By the way as the animal evolves from one species to another it gradually changes, over time this is what causes animals to branch off into new "families". However these new families typically still bear a resemblance to their ancestors the way birds still bear some features of dinosaurs. Its a matter of time scale really.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
You will never convince Creationists that Evolution is real. They believe in their simplistic superstitions "because" they lack the intellectual capacity to understand something as big as Evolution.

It is like trying to explain physics to a 3 year old.

The fact is their lack of intellectual development is actual proof of evolution, and that not all men are created equal.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by marsvoltafan74
 


Individual organisms do not evolve, populations evolve.


while true in your example of horses/mules/donkeys it is not an entirely true statement. It looks neat and tidy in print but you forget the multitude of animals that are capable of breeding that can create fertile offspring. Horses and mules- not happening. grizzly and polar bears? oh hell yes. timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
I would also recomend reading up on punctuated equilibrium.
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 





You will never convince Creationists that Evolution is real. They believe in their simplistic superstitions "because" they lack the intellectual capacity to understand something as big as Evolution.

It is like trying to explain physics to a 3 year old.

The fact is their lack of intellectual development is actual proof of evolution, and that not all men are created equal.




This has to be one of the most offensive posts I have ever read on ATS.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PowerSlave
 


Why because I dare to say that not all men are created equal.

And the lesser intelligent will always be followers of religions and mindless culture. Each having their own stories and managing to find people willing to believe anything told to them.

Why would I give that mindset any respect ? Does it sound intelligent ? NO IT DOES NOT.

We are on a conspiracy site, where analyzing ideas and deconstructing them to get to the truth is what we consider intelligent. Religion by its nature is the exact opposite of that. Not to question, to just "believe".

Only a follower "pretending" to be something they are not would be offended by my statement. The rest will see it as self evident.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


I'm pretty sure the most scientific breakthroughs of our lifetime can be accompanied to those who believed in God and/or followed a religion. To name a few are:

- Galileo Galilei - developed the first effective telescope which he used to prove the Earth went around the Sun.

- Sir Isaac Newton - showed white light could be split into colors and then combined into white light again. You can't forget about his 3 laws of motion. He was also a co-founder of Calculus.

- Robert Boyle - He is known for Boyle's law, which states that the pressure and volume of gas at a constant temperature have an inversely proportional relationship. He was the first to develop modern concepts of element and compound; to distinguish between acids, bases, and neutral substances; and to conduct and publish experiments along the lines now called the scientific method.

- Blaise Pascal - at the age of nineteen, he invented a mechanical calculator capable of working with a currency that used multiples of both 12 and 20. Pascal's scientific contributions include the principle of hydrostatics, now known as Pascal's law, which is the basis of the hydraulic press used in hydraulic brakes and other applications.

- Charles B. Thaxton - With Walter L. Bradley and Clarence Meninga, they authored, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories in 1984. In this book they show how temperature, sunlight, and estimated early atmospheric oxygen (0.2 to 0.4%) making the concentration of organics in the supposed “primeval organic soup” 10-7 (that's negative 7th power) Molar, about the same as the organics in the ocean water today without the life. Since that book was published, many non-theistic scientists have abandoned the idea that life could have evolved in the open water.

Yes, we believers in God and religion are clearly "lesser intelligent" people who don't deserve to be around individuals like you; Oh Great Wise One. Please, do us all a favor and keep your opinions to yourself if you have nothing constructive to say.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 



Sorry but listing scientists that believe in God proves nothing.

Evolution is a particular science that even some highly intelligent people in other areas of science fail to fully appreciate. In my opinion it is as close to understanding the true nature of an omnipotent as man can get. Which by all measure is impossible. It is like understanding how big the Universe really is.

Understanding one science does not automatically make you smart enough to understanding them all. And an Evolutionist will happily say we are still learning. A Creationist will say they already know everything they need to know.

Eg... Algebra is a special math's that not everyone can "get". ( I am one of them ) For others it seems logical or even natural. It means that limitation is inherent in the brains development. I accept that of myself and do not mind being labeled " unintelligent" as a result. I think the same limitation in development that stops people understanding Evolution as a special idea also results in the myriad of inflexible belief systems we have around.

Note: You are the one "pretending" to fully understand the idea of Evolution but then discounting it because you are so intellectually superior. You then probably go on to "pretending " to understand God.

See a pattern ?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Also claiming that certain people ( who are usually dead ) were highly religious is beyond a desperate argument.

Almost everybody " went to Church" in the past. It was considered anti-social not to. In some times you risked being strung up or burnt if you did not.

Oh yea, by the same small minded religious nutters that have held back science in the past.

Coincidence ? I think not.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by novastrike81
 



Sorry but listing scientists that believe in God proves nothing.


You said: "And the lesser intelligent will always be followers of religions and mindless culture". Hence the list, as some of the most intelligent minds of all time were religious. Whether it matters or not; you brought it up.


And an Evolutionist will happily say we are still learning. A Creationist will say they already know everything they need to know.


Did you conduct some sort of poll? Read one? Omnipotent? Your insecurities causing you to talk out your arse?




Eg... Algebra is a special math's that not everyone can "get". ( I am one of them )


You can blame a religious guy for that too [Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwāri]. Wait until you get to Calculus, you know, invented by yet another 'lesser intellect' and worse Creationist (egads!) Sir Issac Newton.



I think the same limitation in development that stops people understanding Evolution as a special idea also results in the myriad of inflexible belief systems we have around.


Not you, though. Unlike Algebra you've got this evolution thing figured out.


Note: You are the one "pretending" to fully understand the idea of Evolution but then discounting it because you are so intellectually superior. You then probably go on to "pretending " to understand God.


Project much?


See a pattern ?


Yup.


What was the topic again.


(edit)PS,







[edit on Sat May 15 2010 by Rren]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by thedeadtruth
 


The list proves that religious people can be "intelligent" people regardless of your biased opinion. You were the one who brought it up so to say it proves nothing is a cop out.

I don't assume to know everything there is to know you just assume that because you think you have all the answers. I also never said I knew everything about Evolution so if you want to show me where I said that I'd love to see it. I also never claimed to be intellectually superior; you again, assumed I did. I will say I have a better understanding of God than you probably ever will.


Also claiming that certain people ( who are usually dead ) were highly religious is beyond a desperate argument.


I'm not arguing with you and I never mentioned them to be highly religious; you did. I just said they believed in God and/or followed a religion. Where does it say anywhere that they were highly religious? Again, stop making assumptions you just keep making yourself look bad.


Oh yea, by the same small minded religious nutters that have held back science in the past.


Those small minded religious nutters are the ones who got science of the ground in the first place. You can thank the Bible for the start of science. Will you acknowledge this? I doubt it.

When you are done chopping down the whole tree and figure there are a few bad apples in every tree, then maybe you won't be so biased in your judgements.

Coincidence? I think not.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
"I will say I have a better understanding of God than you probably ever will."

Sorry the only person who can understand God is another God. Which you are not, trust me. That is the problem with most religious people. Delusions of grandeur and superiority. ( I couldn't be related to a primate, my ego will not allow it )

I do not know you or your personal religious beliefs, but since you mentioned the Bible I can only assume you believe what you are told. Dictated by someone else who could write. Whatever you were taught, you dutifully now believe. If you were in another part of the world, you would believe something else.

I can not respect that and in my opinion it diminishes what I think you are intellectually capable of. And your failure to comprehend Evolution only supports my opinion.

Note: I was educated in a religious environment. But I discounted it as I became a free thinker. So I have walked in your shoes.

Now if you managed to convince me you once studied Evolution in detail, but have now discounted it, and the reasons why. Then you would have something.

But sorry, " Because I was told not to" Or " Because I simply dont get it" Is as bad as me saying I do not believe in Algebra, just because.

[edit on 11/19/09 by thedeadtruth]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
"You can thank the Bible for the start of science."

You are joking right ? The start of science was when someone used the first tool. According to the Bible this event never even happened. Everything just appeared like magic on some mystical date a few thousand years ago.

Yea real scientific



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth


You are joking right ? The start of science was when someone used the first tool.


Huh? Got a citation? That's a new theory/definition/whatever-its-supposed-to-be for me.



According to the Bible this event never even happened. Everything just appeared like magic on some mystical date a few thousand years ago.


Chapter(s) and Verse(s)?


Yea real scientific


I know! It's like you're just making this stuff up as you go.



[edit on Sun May 16 2010 by Rren]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Huh? Got a citation?


Scientific thinking existed long before the Bible was created, and existed in absence of the bible for centuries after it was. The Mayan's had no knowledge of the bible, but were some of the most knowledgeable astronomers, comparable to our level of knowledge today.

The bible did not create science, scientific thinking is something humans do naturally.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by Rren
Huh? Got a citation?


Scientific thinking existed long before the Bible was created, and existed in absence of the bible for centuries after it was. The Mayan's had no knowledge of the bible, but were some of the most knowledgeable astronomers, comparable to our level of knowledge today.

The bible did not create science, scientific thinking is something humans do naturally.


Didn't say it did... was asking about the 'it started when the first tool was picked up' comment. I even quoted it. (i've made an edit for clarification)



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
"You can thank the Bible for the start of science."

You are joking right ? The start of science was when someone used the first tool. According to the Bible this event never even happened. Everything just appeared like magic on some mystical date a few thousand years ago.

Yea real scientific




So how would you classify our existence? According to science we just popped out of no where from a singularity. Your ignorance of scripture is laughable. If you want to believe a day is a day then you don't even understand the root word it was derived from.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I was being simplistic.

Obviously not enough for you. I will try harder next time.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join