• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID/Creationism challenge

fishbob, he does present a theory. You just didn't read his papers.

"Sciency language"? Could that be because they are published papers by a scientist?

No, just couldn't be....

And no, you cannot draw other conclusions if you accept his data such as his claims of sexual reproduction, allelic mutation and natural selection.
 
fishbob said:
Not a single squishy oxygen carrying structure was found. However, fossilized remains of red blood cells were found - (which is pretty cool) and is consistently misrepresented by the ID/C crowd (which is painfully pitiful to behold).
Click to expand...

Um, so you are admitting red blood cells found?

They are not fossilized, and yes soft tissue was found. They are not lying.
 
randman said:
Front loaders predict basically the creation of a super genome in the earliest, first creatures that evolved all of life today, but not through accumulation of genetic complexity over time.
Click to expand...
Except that we do observe an increase in genetic complexity, and these "super genomes" are not in evidence at all.

As far as the 1st genomes, they say "God did it."
Click to expand...
Which is not an answer.

Evos say inorganic material spontaneously generated biological life.
Click to expand...
No they don't. There's a continuum between living and non-living chemistry, and that continuum is still represented today. There was no spontaneous jump, but rather a gradual increase in complexity.
 
Schweitzer first publicly announced her discovery in 1993.[10][11] Since then, the claim of discovering soft tissues in a 68 million year old fossil has been disputed by some molecular biologists. The authenticity of her discovery, however, is now generally accepted in the scientific community although the mechanism of the preservation is not well understood.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer
 
randman said:
Here's a non-theistic mechanism for Intelligent Design.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Of course, wiki could be wrong in it's assessments. But if the universe or multiverse selects past histories for the purpose of allowing life, that's evidence the universe has some sort of intelligence as a mechanism to purpose life and affect the past; hence Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...

That is one very big and completely unsupported 'if'.
 
fishbob said:
That is one very big and completely unsupported 'if'.
Click to expand...
It's not "if" as you read it. If the idea is true, which is that theory, then it's ID. The "if" refers to the whole idea not whether the idea entails selection of a past history to contain life.
 
randman said:
Um, so you are admitting red blood cells found?
Click to expand...
They have found possible indicators of red blood cells and proteins. Possible. Indicators. They have not found intact red blood cells or intact proteins.

They are not fossilized, and yes soft tissue was found. They are not lying.
Click to expand...
They are certainly fossilised - Schweitzer had to dissolve the mineralised bone with acid to reveal the partly preserved soft tissue within. If that's even what it is - the research has not been independently confirmed.

What it most definitely is no is evidence for a young Earth or young dinosaurs; all the aging data still confirms that these fossils are 65 million years old.
 
This was predicted by Davison and other front loaders.

“The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals,” explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort. “Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes as well as the modification of copies of old genes. As each new genome is sequenced, we learn more about the history and physiology of the progenitors and gain insight into the function of human genes.”
Click to expand...

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcamoeba.asp
 
They are certainly fossilised - Schweitzer had to dissolve the mineralised bone with acid to reveal the partly preserved soft tissue within. If that's even what it is - the research has not been independently confirmed.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Yea, a lot of the bone was fossilized but not those parts. She dissolved the fossilized parts to get at it better.
 
randman said:
I would also say physics itself posits either an Intelligent Designer or Intelligence in the Multiverse as Designer.
Click to expand...

You could say that, but you would be wrong if you did.
You would be hard-pressed to find a single physics publication positing such pompous putrificacity.
 
randman said:
Visit the Discovery site and look at some of the peer-reviewed papers there because they and others answer a lot of your questions.
Click to expand...

I have not looked at Discovery Institute in the last year or two. The level of dishonesty at that site made by brain hurt the last time I looked at it. Have they come up with anything worthwhile recently? I do not enjoy subjecting my poor tired synapses to that drivel unnecessarily.
 
randman said:
The fossil record showing species generally appearing and certainly all within the concept of "kinds" abruptly without any evidence of the immediate ancestral kind and always staying within that "kind" (stasis).
Click to expand...

randman said:
The creationist argument and Goldschmidt's (who rejected NeoDarwinism) did not argue there were gaps in the fossil record. That's something Gould and Niles Etheridge addressed in their 1972 paper when they talked basically of how theory affected how the fossil record was viewed. They even begin quoting Darwin's lament that we don't see what he termed as "fine-grained" gradual transitions in the fossil record. We still don't by the way, at least not of macroevolution. We see some fine-grained change that often then evolves back the other way creating a situation of stasis within a range.

That was a large part of what their paper was addressing. They were challenging the concept we didn't see these things because the fossil record was incomplete, but the very idea that these transitions would be there in the first place. It's a pretty simple concept; they said smaller populations evolved fairly quickly in a punctuated fashion so as not to leave those fossils.

The claim there are gaps predisposes acceptance of a theory, namely that the pieces were connected through evolution. It's basically a dishonest tactic to say creationists were pointing out "gaps" when what they were pointing out is the nature of the evidence on it's face, and they were entirely correct which is why evos came up with PE in the first place.
Click to expand...

It is true that there are gaps in the fossil record. There were more in Darwin's time. Transitional fossils have been discovered since that can fill many of those gaps, though not all. But in some cases scientists have found transitions so subtle that they can not agree on classifying some specimen as a transition from one species to another, or as a variant of either.

Let's consider only the hominid line:
Experts disagree if Australopithecus robustus and A. bosei are 2 different species or variants of one. (Neither is considered an ancestor of humans.) Originally some scientists would classify Homo habilis as an australopithecine or as Homo erectus. I understand that the consensus now is that it was a separate species. Homo ergaster is classified by some as a separate species, while others consider it a variant of H. erectus. And there is no clear division between late H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

There lays the true controversy in biology. It could be argued that those examples are invalid, since those beings are no longer living and thus can not be studied completely. But then we have to consider the analogous case of ring species, such as the greenish warblers of Asia which ring the Gobi desert, the ensatina salamanders of California, or the Laurus seagulls around the North Pole. Individuals can mate with their immediate neighbors, but not with those at the extremes.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

ETA: How does Creationism or ID adequately explain the cases I mentioned?
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Wrong. Yea, a lot of the bone was fossilized but not those parts. She dissolved the fossilized parts to get at it better.
Click to expand...
The soft tissue - whatever it is - was incompletely mineralised. It was certainly not intact.

I really don't know what you're trying to argue here. In a fossilised bone, after carefully washing the minerals away by dissolving them in weak acids, reasearchers found some poorly preserved organic material. Poorly preserved, but better preserved than we might have expected, if it is material that originated in the dinosaur itself, rather than latter contamination, a point which has not yet been clearly established.

Does it establish that the bone was not fossilised? No, the bone was clearly fossilised, which is why it had to be dissolved with acid.

Does it establish that the fossil was younger than would otherwise be expected? No, the aging data has not changed at all.

Does it establish that dinosaurs did not evolve naturally? No, the discovery doesn't contradict evolution in any way.

If this ireally is partially-preserved dinosaur soft tissue, then we have a wonderful new source of data on how dinosaurs evolved.

And if it's not... We don't.
 
randman said:
fishbob, he does present a theory. You just didn't read his papers.
Click to expand...

If by theory you mean 'taking pot shots at evolution', then I guess you are right. This entire discussion was intended to discuss the evidence for ID/C theory. Instead you have only done more of what Davison does.
 
btw, here's a paper from 1978 making some of the same claims as Davison, and of course using the term neodarwinism which I also have used here and have been blasted for it.

We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework—the natural selection of random mutations—is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.

Contrary to the neo-Darwinian view, we point out that the variations of the phenotype, on which natural selection could act, do not arise at random; they are produced by interactions between the organism and the environment during development. We propose, therefore, that the intrinsic dynamical structure of the epigenetic system itself, in its interaction with the environment, is the source of non-random variations which direct evolutionary change, and that a proper study of evolution consists in the working out of the dynamics of the epigenetic system and its response to environmental stimuli as well as the mechanisms whereby novel developmental responses are canalized.
We postulate that “large” evolutionary changes could be the result of the canalization of novel developmental responses which arose from environmental challenges under conditions of relaxed natural selection, and moreover, that the canalization of novel developmental responses might involve cytoplasmic inheritance or maternal effects at least in the initial stages./QUOTE]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...0318325f55d622079e6cbb08054a8d3d&searchtype=a
Click to expand...
 
PixyMisa said:
Human DNA codes for twice as many distinct proteins as that amoeba. Your front loading would appear to be working backwards.
Click to expand...
That's easy to solve in my world but you won't like the answer. I think front loading could be true but do not believe evolved in the same manner as other creatures....special creation on that one.

But we'll leave that off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom