Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[RecoveringYuppy]

Didn't say recently dead, and I referred to ostrich bones because that's exactly what the scientists in the field referred to.

Yeah, you did. Read your post. If you meant to say something else use different words. Your whole point was that things aren't as old as we think.

Cite the scientist so we can see what he said, not what you claim he said.

 

[randman]

Are you seriously mystified why a process that depends on random genetic variation for its novel material would not lead to a specific result?

No, I completely agree that it should not lead to a specific result. There should not be a duplication in the pattern but there is, over and over again. That is not a sign of random genetic variation.

 

[Halfcentaur]

You know I used to believe dinosaurs were very old. I am not a young earth creationist. But they've been cutting into their bones and finding red blood cells and soft tissue. Biochemistry tells you that at least for those dinosaurs, they are not more than 10,000 years old.

You can cling to your theories or look at the facts. When a dino-bone is cut open and isn't too much different than cutting an ostrich bone, something is wrong with your theory, bigtime, maybe with your whole view of reality in fact.

Doesn't mean the earth is 6000 years old but it does mean those specific dinosaur bones are NOT 65 million years old.

I'm well aware of the recent discoveries of these sort.
The level of preservation you're under the assumption of in these cases is nowhere near that intact.

And I am not calling you a denialist because I am trying to insult you.

You're a denialist because you're behaving within the parameters exactly described by the label. You're either a denialist, or you're an intellectual hero against something vast.

You present the world of science as a dogmatic faith based institution which only those with a privileged clarity of mind can detect. You are making wild conclusions now based on data that learned scientists and experts somehow ignored. You're claiming there is a vast conspiracy at the worst, or a tragic institution of self delusion and submission at best.

Why is it I wonder that these "evos" are so adamant in maintaining this faith in light of evidence? What reward is there in this faith? A godless universe, with no afterlife or reward or justice to find? Are we all just God haters, and we seek to deny this God we all know is there in our hearts? Or all we all just self absorbed and arrogant and lured by the thought of man replacing a God?

Surely so many people could not just be mindlessly submitting to authority for so long without challenge. There would have to be either a conspiracy, or an agenda against God, a tempting agenda, or we're all just subservient lack wits.

Or you're a denialist with an agenda to champion founded on a mistake.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am not confusing anything at all. Maybe you don't know what evolutionary theory is? NeoDarwinism

Evolutionary theory.

is a theory that explicitly lays out a mechanism for evolution to take place.

Sure. It's kind of implied in the name, the Theory of Evolution.

Please explain how that mechanism explains the data on genomic complexity of the LCA.

Natural selection acting on genetic variation.

How does it explain the origin of novel genes?

Mutation.

If it cannot explain the origin of novel genes, then is it that explanatory?

Since it can, your question does not apply.

 

[randman]

Yeah, you did. Read your post. If you meant to say something else use different words. Your whole point was that things aren't as old as we think.

Cite the scientist so we can see what he said, not what you claim he said.

I have reread it. Don't see "recently" dead as if just killed the night before or something.

So far citing studies and evidence has not produced too many actually willing to understand and debate the actual argument, though there is a little of that.

I spent pages trying to get some evos here to just take a clear position on what NeoDarwinism predicts and thought they finally did. Then, when I showed them the facts disagreeing with that, they pretend it doesn't matter.

So first if you want to know about the soft tissue and red blood cells, maybe google a little first. It will come up for you and you can dive in and then if you have more specifics, we can talk about it.

Agreed?

 

[bokonon]

But what if molecular studies indicate all the genes and even more were already present and did not emerge via natural selection?

What if oranges were purple?

First, genes are culled by natural selection, they don't emerge via natural selection. Organisms which don't reproduce don't pass along their genes.

Second, if your statement "all the genes and even more were already present" is intended to imply that present-day single-celled organisms can furnish an example of every gene which can be found in present-day multicelled organisms, molecular studies don't show that to be the case at all.

If that isn't what your statement means, please clarify.

 

[randman]

Natural selection acting on genetic variation.

How? How does natural selection act on genetic mutation?

 

[randman]

I don't see how you don't get it. What if the ancestor to say all plants and animals had more types of genes than all the plants and animals do today?

Nothing about current simple organisms having all the genes but they can be instructive.

I'd appreciate an answer other than some nonsense about oranges being purple.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I completely agree that it should not lead to a specific result. There should not be a duplication in the pattern but there is, over and over again. That is not a sign of random genetic variation.

And, bizarrely, you chose marsupial and placental mice as an example "duplication of pattern".

They have similar overall body plans, though they are easily distinguished.

Marsupial mice have pointed snouts like shrews, where placental mice have rounded noses.

Marsupial mice are carnivores.
Placental mice are herbivores.

Male marsupial mice die after the first mating season.
Male placental mice.... Don't.

Female placental mice don't have pouches.
Female marsupial mice.... Don't have pouches either. The young just have to hang on.

The diet is completly different, so not surprisingly, the teeth are completely different. Placental mice, being rodents, have rodent teeth; marsupial mice, being insectivores and carnivores, have nasty pointy little bitey teeth.

You call these two beasties identical?

 

[Halfcentaur]

I believe he's talking about some recent fossil finds like this one.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

There was also a National Geographic special with a fossilized dinosaur which still had scales.

 

[Mister Agenda]

This is really pathetic. A denialist? Must be, eh? Couldn't be that there are such things as Marsupial and Placental mice?

Do you really believe the pairs are not given as examples of convergent evolution?

Here is a link with pics of "convergent evolution examples." Please note the pic of the Marsupial mouse.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/convergent_evolution_examples.htm

Marsupial 'mice' are not mouse analogues. They are insectivores, although one species of nectar eater is known. Although they superficially resemble mice, they are not an example of convergent evolution with mice. Mice are herbivores.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So first if you want to know about the soft tissue and red blood cells, maybe google a little first. It will come up for you and you can dive in and then if you have more specifics, we can talk about it.

Agreed?

I already googled it. That's how I know what you posted was far from the truth.

 

[randman]

It didn't. It evolved once and has been preserved on all species descended from that common ancestor.

Since you aren't even talking about features that evolved independently, it's hard to conclude you know what you're talking about.

Who I would really like to meet is someone who argues against evolution with integrity, but I'm beginning to think they're nearly as rare as fire-breathing dragons.

You guys are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Yes, the mammalian ear did independently evolve, 3 times in fact, or that was the current view just a couple of years ago.

As far as integrity, the one piece of data you actually deigned to discuss, you are wrong over. Yet you insult me?

 

[bokonon]

OK, you are comfortable with this statement:

Evolution predicts the arrival of new genes

How does evolution predict the arrival of new genes? Break it down. What happens to evolve new genes?

There are many mechanisms, but let's start with one and see where you're going with this.

Human beings receive two copies of every chromosome (except, for men, one copy of the X chromosome, and one copy of the Y chromosome). So they have two copies of every gene.

If the gene they received from their mother is different than the gene they received from their father, they have one copy of a gene which is different than another copy of the same gene -- a "new" gene.

 

[randman]

I already googled it. That's how I know what you posted was far from the truth.

Name one comment that I made that was incorrect. Please provide a specific quote.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I believe he's talking about some recent fossil finds like this one.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

There was also a National Geographic special with a fossilized dinosaur which still had scales.

Yeah, that's the same article I found. And there is no support for the idea that the dinosaur bones are less than 10,000 years old in that article. Even less so for the broad claim that cutting in to ostrich bones is the same as cutting in to dinosaur bones in a way that suggest dinosaur bones are recent. The claim about similarity between dinosaurs and ostriches is the that their blood vessels look similar under a microscrope.

 

[randman]

Mister Agenda:

Evidence that the angular (homologous with the mammalian ectotympanic) and the articular and prearticular (homologous with the mammalian malleus) bones retained attachment to the lower jaw in a basal monotreme indicates that the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5711/910.abstract

You owe me an apology as it is you that was wrong. You also shouldn't be so quick to claim critics don't understand evolution. I see nothing in your post on evolution, for example, except one comment which was wrong.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Except they are not the same conditions. As usual, evos posit something as an explanation and then go off repeating it without any substantiation of it.

Moreover, "what works best" has not been selected for. Something that works maybe but nowhere near "best." You are just ignoring the argument. Why would a process of random mutation with all kinds of different available designs not produce different designs instead of repeating the same?

More specific and please answer or admit you cannot and quit with the insults: what possible environmental advantage is there to the mammalian ear in it's precise design over something else?

Sigh. 'Best' as in best option from the available variations. Not the best possible option. Like picking the best car off a car lot, not picking the best car imaginable...because no one makes the best car imaginable.

The mammalian ear is the best one around. The best on the lot. It doesn't need advantages over something else if the something else isn't there.

 

[Halfcentaur]

You guys are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Yes, the mammalian ear did independently evolve, 3 times in fact, or that was the current view just a couple of years ago.

As far as integrity, the one piece of data you actually deigned to discuss, you are wrong over. Yet you insult me?

You are the one who used a manipulative method of discussion intended to bait people into saying certain things you wanted to attack. This is the definition of lacking integrity. If you think that's insulting, then don't do it in the first place.

How? How does natural selection act on genetic mutation?

Incidentally.

 

[randman]

Yeah, that's the same article I found. And there is no support for the idea that the dinosaur bones are less than 10,000 years old in that article. Even less so for the broad claim that cutting in to ostrich bones is the same as cutting in to dinosaur bones in a way that suggest dinosaur bones are recent. The claim about similarity between dinosaurs and ostriches is the that their blood vessels look similar under a microscrope.

I guess you didn't read much more than that one article. But even there, based on your comments, your link agrees with me. I certainly didn't make up the ostrich reference.

Define "recent" btw.