Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

I was merely cutting and pasting from the dictionary. If it is

irrelevant..lol.....I'm not the one to confront with that. And as far as

" massive scientific evidence " why is it still called a " theory? "

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

,

> 1.. Change in the genetic composition of a population during

>successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the

>genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of

>new species.

I'm not sure why you posted that very long list of largely irrelevant

definitions, but as you can see from the above definition, it is

populations, not species, that evolve. That is why it explicitly

notes the development of a new species, but says nothing about the

cessation of the original species.

> Gene, in answer to your question as to whether or not I think that

>discounts evolution, absolutely not. However, I too search for the truth in

>everything. One thing that I find interesting is that Darwin was a " self

>taught " geologist. And I am probably far less an expert in evolution as

>you are, but isn't geology the study of rocks and of the earth's crust and

>such?

The theory of evoultion in its current state does not rest on Darwin's

findings (though they are still illustrative and supportive), and no

theory in any science whatsoever depends on the background of its

advocates and certainly not of a mere one of its advocates.

> Darwin was a confessed Agnostic, he wasn't sure either way

>whether God existed or not.

What does his faith have to do with yours, mine, or anyone else's?

> One of the arguments for Darwin was that

>he " had to be sure of his theory, otherwise why would he have suffered

>the persecution of the religious world? "

I have never heard anyone argue for Darwin; I'm not even sure what it

would mean to " argue for Darwin. " Likewise I would immediately

dismiss anyone who argued for *evolution* on the basis of Darwin's

willingness to endure any type of persecution, and if that was the

only argument for evolution I would certainly dismiss the theory off

the bat. Likewise, even if a good many of its proponents suggested

that such an argument was evidence for evolution, I would be highly

skeptical of the theory on the basis that most of its advocates were

obvious kooks.

Since that is not the case, I believe evolution takes place based on

the massive scientific evidence and the absolute self-evidence of

evolution that stares back at you when you look at how the inside of a

cell is ordered.

> And in using that question, I

>have to say why would men for over the last 2000 years give their lives for

>something they believed in, if they too weren't sure?

This likewise does not prove that the faith they died for was true.

Nevertheless, there is nothing mutually exclusive about evolution and

Christianity, which is why millions of Christians believe in

evolution.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

>

> honestly, I've never met a Christian who believed in evolution. When someone

comes

> and says that the bibles says such and such, I always ask for chapter and

verse. I'm

> asking you where you get your information from on the Christians viewpoint on

evolution,

> as far as believing in it.

> Sorry

>

As an example, I had two professors in college who taught aspects of

evolution (one anthropologist and one geologist) and both were

Christians. Neither saw any difficulty in reconciling the two. And

these were people who had actually studied both the science and the

religion, not just people having knee-jerk reactions.

There doesn't have to be any conflict. What conflict exists is

artificial and the result of ignorance or obduracy on one side or the

other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

>

> I was merely cutting and pasting from the dictionary. If it is

irrelevant..lol.....I'm not the

> one to confront with that. And as far as " massive scientific evidence " why is

it still called

> a " theory? "

>

Is that really going to be the extent of the argument? That it's

called a theory? If anyone actually has something to say then maybe

this discussion is worthwhile, but otherwise why not just end it?

has tried repeatedly to have an actual conversation and has been

met with a brick wall of repetition, rants about communists and

meaningless quipped retorts. How utterly boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 9/6/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> > The

> > foundation of the evolutionary model is the geologic column,

>

> This statement is absolutely absurd. Given the limitations of each

> area of science, we would expect the absolute worst evidence for

Name the specific gene sequences additionally created. And prove that

any such changes are beneficial and necessary for the survival of the

species.

> evolution to come from paleontology. Unsurprisingly, paleontology is

> not the leading line of evidence used by evolutionists to argue for

> evolution. Again, unsurprisingly, your argument rests well over 90

> percent on paleontology.

This is not the case. My biological arguments and paleontological

arguments stand separately, neither one depends on the other for

support, evolutionists routinely refer to the geologic column to find

support that the minute variations are part of the grand principle of

evolution.

>

>

> >but it an

> > elaborate and massive construct.

>

> I remain agnostic towards your interpretation of the paleontological

> evidence because I don't know enough about it. You clearly know much

> more about paleontology than you know about molecular biology, so I

> don't take your thorough misrepresentation of the latter to

> necessarily reflect on your representation of the former, but it gives

> me pause before attributing any credibility to your paleontological

> assessment.

>

> > Neither the fossil record nor real

> > time obsevation and experimentation supports the elaborate construct.

> > It is easy to see how evolutionary scientists have faith that the

> > variations obseved in nature are manifistations of evolution displayed

> > in classic text books, but the geologic column is a construct rife

> > with massive omissions, massive reversals, circular and unvarifiable

> > dating, the " universal principle of evolution " evaporates like a puff

> > of mist.

>

> If the dating is as unreliable as you claim, then there is no evidence

> *against* evolution from these datings either. Since paleontology is

> not the primary argument for evolution and never has been, this does

> not give any reasonable person rational license to ignore the piles

> and piles of evidence accumulated from other fields.

Numerous evolutionists take one side or the other and use one side to

prove the other.

Evolutionist biologists repeatedly use paleontology as GIGANTIC

framework for interpreting the MINUTE variations observed in real time

organisms.

> I have repeatedly refuted numerous assertions of yours about what we

> observe in real time, and you repeatedly have ignored them.

This is merely microevolution, not the grand scale macroevolution.

>

> As an example, you stated unequivocally that when different species

> interbreed, their offspring are sterile or reduced in either viability

> or fitness. I gave you two examples directly refuting that -- the

> hybrids between Townsend warblers and hermit warblers, and the hybrids

> between tiger salamanders and axolotl salamanders. The first you

> ignored with no mention. The second you engaged after I repeated it

> three times, repeatedly noting your failure to engage it, but in doing

> so, you argued that it was not an example of a mechanism of

> macroevolution, but never admitted to the obvious fact that it was a

> direct refutation about the viability of hybrid species.

Hybrid species simply demonstrate that they are of the same kind, not

that one kind was derived from another. This is irrelevant to the

grand macrobiotic hypothesis. These are minute variations and

recombination's, not great leaps of genetic changes. Crabs are crabs.

Salamanders are salamanders. Proves nothing else.

>

> As a second example, you have repeatedly stated that " no new genetic

> material " arises except adverse changes due to radiation or other

> types of cellular damage, and that these " random, " as you erroneously

> call them, changes are incapable of generating " new genetic material. "

> I have listed numerous other mechanisms by which new genetic material

> is incorporated into the genome, and you have flat-out ignored all of

> them.

Give the gene sequences that have been generated and the specific code

affected. You must prove that the gene sequences were not

pre-existing that were newly generated. Then you must prove that over

successive generations, that code is not only beneficial for the

survival of the new species but also viable enough to be spread into

the gene pool. If you can catalog these new changes specifically,

then we have somewhere to go. Otherwise there is no evidence of

macroevolution on a grand scale.

>

> Your idea that macroevolution requires " new genetic material must be

> introduced into offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely

> recombination of genes, but entirely new genetic material, " reaches

> the height of absurdity. The very basis of the entire theme of

> evolution is that forms of life do not appear suddenly ex nihilo, but

> evolve from pre-existing forms of life. This applies to organisms

> right down to genes.

This is not so because, new organs must be fully functional to be

beneficial to an organism. And the new code must not disrupt the rest

of the functions of the organism. If a new heart chamber develops,

for example, it must be connected to the properly to venal AND

arterial connections AND the nerves must be connected right AND the

valves must be in the right place AND it must not leak AND it must not

be too large AND it must not constrict the flow of blood AND the new

changes must not interfere with the functioning of other organs and

organ systems, etc. By the time the organism makes complex new gene

sequences, it will die do to waiting for the right combinations. This

goes for one organ and organ system after another. Organ systems are

very very complex and cannot stand a myriad of nonbenefical changes

while waiting for the right combination of simultaneous developments.

Observable beneficial variation that we do observe is minuscule to the

massive simultaneous random additions that would have to be required

to form wholly different organisms.

>

> If you look at proteins, what you see is the same types of homology

> and analogy that you see in macroscopic anatomical structures, and it

> is *abundantly* evident that genes and proteins are largely made by

> reconstructing the same parts of other genes and proteins. There are

> large superfamilies of proteins that involve the same basic protein

> unit, and thus the same basic genetic unit, simply repeated over and

> over again, arranged in different numbers per molecule or hinged

> together at different orientations, certain small parts of which may

> have degrees of variability where only several amino acids vary

> between the proteins yet these amino acids dramatically change their

> binding affinity.

But getting these proteins to work together requires a vast array of

complex code that would have to be disassembled and reassembled, to

produce wholly new organs and organ systems, there is no observed

mechanism for this. This would have to require entirely different

mechanism than what we observe.

>

> Now, you would expect, then, that the *primary* mechanism of

> evolutionary change would not be the " random " point mutations induced

> by radiation that the body tries to prevent and fix as much as

> possible -- although these are clearly a source of genetic variation

> -- but you would instead expect it to occur through a mechanism of

> domain shuffling. That is, taking large sections that code for

> self-stable functional units of proteins, and mixing them together in

> different ways.

>

> Sure enough, site-specific recombination does exactly that, and is

> directly observed. As a DNA-repair mechanism, double strand breaks

> are often repaired by taking the allele from the homologous but

> *other* chromosome with the *other* allele, and using this allele to

> copy the part that is missing from the first. Rarely are whole genes

> copied this way. Often, only parts of genes are copied this way.

> Thus, a *new* *different* gene is born. Not from randomly mutating

> things in ways that might not have any functional utility, but by

> taking one *part* of something that already has established functional

> utiltiy, and combining it with something else that has established

> functional utility.

>

> Although this process is most well-described and well-characterized in

> fungi, if you do a search for " HLA gene conversion " on PubMed you will

> see numerous reports of previously unidentified HLA genes in certain

Previously unidentified does not prove to be new, additional material

and the function of the new genes would have to be observed over

generations. Are these just redundant genes that are there as filler?

Do they have a distinct function? For macroevolution to occur, we

must not only have new distinct material, but also functional and

beneficial material that is dependent for the species survival and

continues for successive generations so that it continues and

increases the survivability of the new species, and the new species

must not be able to breed again with its ancestor.

> populations like island populations that appear to have been created

> through this process, and at the very least plausibly attributed to

> this process based on the fact that these *new* and *different* and

> *completely functional* genes are clearly a rearrangement of

> functional units taken from different genes and combined.

Much more than this is required for macroevolution to occur. And the

more complex the organism, the more complex will be the process of any

point addition to the genetic code, there are more things to go wrong.

>

> Nevertheless, you argue that 1) there is no mechanism for genetic

> transfer except random damage induced by radiation and

2) the simple

> lack of clarity and inconclusiveness of the fossil record refutes all

> other evidence for evolution, even though you yourself explicitly

> state that it is inconclusive and therefore can *not* be evidence

> against evolution.

As I stated each branch has its separate problems, but evolutionists

use one branch of evolutionary science to prove the other.

>

> Isn't it interesting that I say something new each time and you repeat

> yourself, regardless of what I say?

I really do not see anything significantly new in your successive

discussions. Whatever the mechanisms we observe in variation, they

must be interpreted through the observation of how those mechanisms

play out in the gene pools. Your continued explanations of various

genetic processes are not able to interpolate to change our

observations of what is happening amongst populations of organisms

throughout nature. What we see microscopically in the genes is

totally dependent on how they play out in the gene pools of real life

organism in nature. Apes are still apes and there is no evidence in

the genes that they have been anything else, but that they exhibit

limits to variation. Hybridization also exhibits limits to variation.

Bacteria are still bacteria. For all the gene swapping and variation

exhibited in bacteria, bacteria are still bacteria. I repeat this

because that is what nature repeats over and over and over as long as

we humans have been observing bacteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> honestly, I've never met a Christian who believed in evolution. When

>someone comes and says that the bibles says such and such, I always

>ask for chapter and verse. I'm asking you where you get your information

>from on the Christians viewpoint on evolution, as far as believing in it.

I don't see how I can cite a chapter or verse from the bible to show

that Christians believe in evolution. The Roman Catholic church's

official position, for example, is that evolution is supported by

science and not in conflict with the church's doctrine. I do not cite

this as evidence that evolution is consistent with the Bible, nor do I

deny that is consistent with the Bible; I'm merely pointing out that

the Roman Catholic church, which is by far the most numerous Christian

organization in the world, takes this stance, and thus most Roman

Catholics who are taught this stance by the instructors in their faith

also believe in the scientifically established concept of evolution.

I'm sure this information is readily available in numerous polls but

the Roman Catholic church's stance is in any case well known.

That you have never met such a Christian reflects your limited

exposure to the diversity of modes of thought that exist among

Christians and suggests that you are familiar only with a relatively

narrow type of Christianity that is, overall, not the norm, but exists

very strongly in specific pockets of the U.S.

I would suggest that you withold judgment on the issue of evolution

until you are familiar with what it actually is. As demonstrated in

the last few posts, you are unfamiliar with the concept, so how can

you decide so easily whether it is consistent or inconsistent with

your faith, or whether it is sensible or insensible, until you

understand its basic concepts?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> Is dirt or clay inorganic?

Clay is as far as I know primarily composed of silica and alumina,

which are inorganic. This is interesting as Becker proposed

that life evolved from semi-conducting rocks and actually proposed a

very intriguing mechanism.

In any case, whether it is inorganic or organic with respect to carbon

is not very important compared to the fact that the Bible explicitly

states that man was drawn up from non-living matter rather than

created out of nothing. There is nothing about evolution in the

creation story per se, nor is there anything about the creation of

bacteria, archaea, protists or fungi. Thus, anyone who insists that

the absence of details from the creation story indicates that those

details did not actually happen as part of creation is taking the

completely and ridiculously unsupportable position that God did not

create bacteria, archaea, protists or fungi, which means either that

someone else created them, that they spontaneously generated of their

own volition, or that they do not exist.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi ,

> I was merely cutting and pasting from the dictionary. If it is

>irrelevant..lol.....I'm not the one to confront with that.

Actually, you are the only person to confront about it, because

whoever put it in the dictionary did not do so with the specific

future event in mind that you would copy and paste all definitions

into a thread on biological evolution regardless of their pertinence.

And actually, the person or people who wrote those definitions made it

very easy for you by listing the two relevant definitions with a

header that read " Biology. "

Usually when people reference information, they reference only the

relevant part, and if they use a direct quote, they quote only the

*most* relevant point and point most useful to quote, and then they

add their own text to state their view of the relevance of that

reference to the discussion. This is not only standard practice but

also the most useful practice.

> And as far as " massive scientific evidence " why is it still called

>a " theory? "

The word " theory " does not connote the degree to which the theory is

substantiated. Thus, substantiation for a theory could be infinitely

massive, such that one would colloquially say it was " proven, " and it

would not be any less of a " theory " than when it originally had only

modest support.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> > This statement is absolutely absurd. Given the limitations of each

> > area of science, we would expect the absolute worst evidence for

> Name the specific gene sequences additionally created. And prove that

> any such changes are beneficial and necessary for the survival of the

> species.

Since you are quoting my statement on the limitations in the fossil

record here, I am not sure which gene or genes you are asking me to

catalogue.

> >Again, unsurprisingly, your argument rests well over 90

> >percent on paleontology.

> This is not the case. My biological arguments and paleontological

> arguments stand separately, neither one depends on the other for

> support,

I didn't say they depended upon each other. I said that your argument

rests mostly on paleontology, specifically your insistence that the

dating is inconclusive.

Your genetic arguments rest on the repeated erroneous statement that

no new genetic material is introduced into the genome; thus, it is

meritless because its premise is false.

> evolutionists routinely refer to the geologic column to find

> support that the minute variations are part of the grand principle of

> evolution.

From what I have seen, evolutionists do not trod out such arguments as

" fossil x is 500 million years old; thus, evolution occurs. " Rather,

the *relative* placement of fossils in the geological strata is used.

In support of this, reference 1 trailing this post describes how

numerous studies have shown that the placement of fossils within the

geological strata are statistically significantly correlated with the

expected placement of these species on the phylogenetic tree, that

such analyses yield an increased strength of correlation when a

greater number of fossils have accumulated, and that it is increased

over broader spans of strata compared to narrow spans. Because of the

inherent tendency toward error in the fossil record due to its

incompleteness, the correlations would be expected to strengthen over

larger spans.

When an evolutionist provides introductory evidence for the general

theory of biological evolution, that evidence does not, in my

experience, emphasize something like hominid paleontology, which is

difficult to interpret and takes place in a relatively narrow band of

strata. In the second quoted paragraph of reference 1 below, primates

were analyzed as a group. Their placement comapared to 24 similar

taxa of vertebrates was tested, yielding a high correlation between

the placement in geological strata and the placement of each of these

groups on a phylogenetic tree. I suspect that if they conducted a

similar study at the species level they would not get very good

results.

So, I perhaps misspoke in my last email by diminishing the use of

paleontology. I think I said more clearly and correctly in my first

email today that the relationships rather than the dating forms the

primary evidence from paleontology. In any case, another point I have

been trying to emphasize is that we have many other forms of evidence

in addition to paleontology.

> > If the dating is as unreliable as you claim, then there is no evidence

> > *against* evolution from these datings either. Since paleontology is

> > not the primary argument for evolution and never has been, this does

> > not give any reasonable person rational license to ignore the piles

> > and piles of evidence accumulated from other fields.

> Numerous evolutionists take one side or the other and use one side to

> prove the other.

Perhaps you could provide an example?

> Evolutionist biologists repeatedly use paleontology as GIGANTIC

> framework for interpreting the MINUTE variations observed in real time

> organisms.

I'm not really sure enough of what you mean to respond.

> > I have repeatedly refuted numerous assertions of yours about what we

> > observe in real time, and you repeatedly have ignored them.

> This is merely microevolution, not the grand scale macroevolution.

My refutation of your assertions is microevolution?

We cannot have a discussion if you bring each specific point back to

the same broad criteria of proving macroevolution. In order to carry

out an actual discussion, we must proceed point by point.

Let's recapitulate some of these points:

You have tautologically stated that we have not observed in real time

a process that takes place over geologic time. This is, of course, a

truism, albeit a meaningless one.

I, in turn, have pointed out that direct observation is not a

reasonable standard of evidence. If, for example, 12 people using

your standard of evidence were placed on a jury, murderers would walk

free everywhere. Yet this is not because our justice system uses a

loose standard of evidence. We DO in fact care if we put innocent

people in jail. Thus, we have due process that puts the burden of

proof on the prosecution rather than the defense. Nevertheless, we do

not hold the standard that the jury must directly observe the murder.

The reason is because the combination of independent lines of evidence

from different forms of forensic evidence that corroborate each other,

witness testimony -- not necessarily witnesses who directly witnessed

the murder -- and other forms of evidence are sufficient to themselves

constitute the demonstration of guilt beyond a *reasonable* doubt.

This is true despite the fact that the jury *never* witnesses the

murder first hand. And this is not a matter of scientific curiosity;

it is much more consequential, because we risk ruining an innocent man

or woman's life. Yet you raise the burden of evidence for an academic

matter to a standard vastly beyond the standard we use to put people

in prison for life or to put them to death! You use a burden of

evidence that, if we were to apply it to our justice system, would let

virtually every single murderer back on the streets.

So, I have offered that instead what we see is the mechanisms of

macroevolution operating. I have pointed out, for example, that

large-scale morphological changes and life mode changes can happen due

to a single allele, giving the axolotl salamander as an example. My

purpose was not to prove that the axolotl came from the tiger

salamander or that humans came from amoebas, but was much more

specific: to show that these major changes, which form the basis for

changes across large taxa, are not necessarily due to changes in a

large multiplicity of genes, but can be triggered by changes in even

one gene.

I have also pointed out that there are numerous mechanisms of

introducing new genetic material, such as mobile genetic elements of

various kinds, duplications, point-mutations, inversions,

site-specific recombination, and so on. I have further pointed out

that site-specific recombination provides a mechanism by which

functional groups are exchanged instead of mutations made at random

points that are likely to lead to non-functionality. This forms a

basis for a rather methodical change. For example, a domain that

might be a binding site for a specific protein or gene regulatory

element could be conferred upon a preexisting protein that would

confer upon it a new or expanded function.

You have repeatedly dismissed all of this on the basis that it is " not

macroevolution. " This is not the point: each of these points stand

alone with specific purposes. Since you bring everything back to the

single criteria that it must either prove macroevolution in one single

shot or be useless, you fail to engage the discussion on any of these

specific points and thus the discussion fails to progress.

> > As a second example, you have repeatedly stated that " no new genetic

> > material " arises except adverse changes due to radiation or other

> > types of cellular damage, and that these " random, " as you erroneously

> > call them, changes are incapable of generating " new genetic material. "

> > I have listed numerous other mechanisms by which new genetic material

> > is incorporated into the genome, and you have flat-out ignored all of

> > them.

> Give the gene sequences that have been generated and the specific code

> affected. You must prove that the gene sequences were not

> pre-existing that were newly generated. Then you must prove that over

> successive generations, that code is not only beneficial for the

> survival of the new species but also viable enough to be spread into

> the gene pool. If you can catalog these new changes specifically,

> then we have somewhere to go. Otherwise there is no evidence of

> macroevolution on a grand scale.

Again, you have *repeatedly* stated that " no new genetic material " is

observed to be incorporated into genomes. I am not obliged to show a

piece of evidence that stands itself as " evidence of macroevolution on

a grand scale " to show that this single point of yours, on which you

base your position on macroevolution, is blatantly false. All I need

do is point out the various mechanisms by which new genetic material

is introduced.

As to gene sequences being pre-existing rather than " newly generated, "

you are correct that unless we actually watch the mutation occur, this

uncertainty exists. But there is only a certain degree of absurdity

which we should tolerate to be applied to the interpretation of

uncertainty.

The introduction of variance into alleles by mutation is an

established concept. Since we know of no other source for this

variation, we *should* be able to conclude that the variance arises by

mutation. It is as if I found a banana peel on the street and claimed

it came from a banana tree, and you insisted that I had not

sufficiently met that burden of proof, having not observed it hanging

from a banana tree before it landed on my street.

Exactly how do you propose genetic variance in the human population

could possibly occur? Mitochondrial DNA evidence indicates that

currently living humans all share a single common mother. The only

known competing explanations for the origins of life are religious

doctrines, most of which also posit a single mother, at least that I

am familiar with. How, then, do you supposed that hundreds of alleles

and polymorphisms of a single gene could arise except by mutations of

that gene?

There is no way to avoid the conclusion that they occurred through the

observed process of mutation without applying an unreasonable degree

of absurdity to your interpretation of the uncertainty.

And no, it is not important to prove benefit in order to prove that

new genetic material is introduced. All that is required to prove

this is that new genetic material is introduced. Again, one point at

a time.

> > Your idea that macroevolution requires " new genetic material must be

> > introduced into offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely

> > recombination of genes, but entirely new genetic material, " reaches

> > the height of absurdity. The very basis of the entire theme of

> > evolution is that forms of life do not appear suddenly ex nihilo, but

> > evolve from pre-existing forms of life. This applies to organisms

> > right down to genes.

> This is not so because, new organs must be fully functional to be

> beneficial to an organism.

" New organs " do not need new sets of genes. They need a different mix

of signals during their differentiation to modifiy which genes are

silenced.

Further, " fully functional " is relative. A sponge has some degree of

celluar differentiation, but does not have true tissues. A jelly fish

has a nerve net, but not a brain. Brains are essentially complexes of

many nerve nets. The jelly fish did not have to have a whole brain in

order to have nervous tissue; it simply needed rudimentary nervous

tissue.

In any case, your comment does not relate to my point. My point was

that " domain shuffling " is a common theme in the evolution of genes.

We do not observe that each protein is fullly unique. Instead, we

observe a patchwork of distinct protein domains -- that is, functional

units of a protein -- that are shuffled together in many ways. The Ig

superfamily, for example, uses the repeating Ig unit over and over and

over and over again. Even just the antibodies make TRILLIONS of

proteins by combining this one, single Ig unit many times in an

antibody with only a few amino acids in the variable portion that

vary. And the antibodies are only one subclass of the Ig superfamily.

Many other proteins use this same domain as a repeat, put together in

different ways. As another example, vitamin D-binding protein, serum

albumin, and alpha-fetoprotein are all essentially the same three

domains, but they are hinged together at a different angle, making the

domains organized in a different orientation, and thus altering the

affinity of the binding site for certain molecules. It was not

necessary to make each protein anew. All that was necessary was to

swap large functional units around, and then make minor adjustments in

the strings of amino acids that connect them.

> And the new code must not disrupt the rest

> of the functions of the organism.

This is true, but all this means is that not all mutations will be

successful. It does not mean that *no mutations will occur* and that

*no new genetic material will be introduced.* In any case, the point

being discussed here is whether, in your words, it is a requirement of

macroevolution that " new genetic material must be introduced into

offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely recombination of

genes, but entirely new genetic material. " The fact that a new code

must not disrupt preexisting functions does not in any way indicate a

requirement for totally new genetic material. If anything, it makes

working with the pre-existing genetic code a requirement, because

building on that existing code is less likely to introduce disruption.

> If a new heart chamber develops,

> for example, it must be connected to the properly to venal AND

> arterial connections AND the nerves must be connected right AND the

> valves must be in the right place AND it must not leak AND it must not

> be too large AND it must not constrict the flow of blood AND the new

> changes must not interfere with the functioning of other organs and

> organ systems, etc. By the time the organism makes complex new gene

> sequences, it will die do to waiting for the right combinations.

This is ridiculous. If a new chamber of the heart is to develop, it

does not need a new gene for each lipid in the membrane and for each

three-dimensional coordinate a blood vessel or nerve travels. Each

cell already has the same genome. There is no requirement for a gene

for each chamber or for each part of the chamber. Instead, what is

needed is a change in the mix of signals that influence

differentiation and embryonic development. The direction of the

nerves and blood vessels is not directed by genes! How many genes do

you think we even have? We have about 20,000 and we'd need millions

if we had the incomprehensibly inefficient system of development you

are proposing. Nerves and blood vessels reach their target through

chemical signaling systems that communicate directly with the target.

No new gene required.

> This

> goes for one organ and organ system after another. Organ systems are

> very very complex and cannot stand a myriad of nonbenefical changes

> while waiting for the right combination of simultaneous developments.

And if every minute portion of their placement was mapped out by an

individual gene, this would be meaningful. Since it is not, it isn't.

Moreover, what is being discussed here is whether " entirely new

genetic material that was not present in the ancestor " is needed. On

the contrary, your emphasis on the complexity of organs only proves

the point that it is more possible to work within the pre-existing

genome.

> Observable beneficial variation that we do observe is minuscule to the

> massive simultaneous random additions that would have to be required

> to form wholly different organisms.

Back to the axolotl: ONE ALLELE is responsible for the development of

external gills and the transition from a terrestrial to an aquatic

lifestyle. This is not a brand new gene, but a modification to a

pre-existing gene. You are immensely overestimating the amount of

simultaneous mutation that is required for major changes.

> But getting these proteins to work together requires a vast array of

> complex code that would have to be disassembled and reassembled, to

> produce wholly new organs and organ systems, there is no observed

> mechanism for this. This would have to require entirely different

> mechanism than what we observe.

The domain shuffling point offers the capacity to utilize pre-existing

regulatory machinery. This is the entire point. If we needed to make

" entirely new genetic material, " then we would need to build all these

regulatory mechanisms at once. We do not. We can integrate a protein

into a regulatory system simply by shuffling a domain that is related

to that regulator system into that protein.

" Wholly new organs " do not pop up out of nowhere. An organ is just

cells that have differentiated to fulfill a certain function.

Bacterial cells exhibit these types of characteristics when in a

colony, even when considered unicellular. You are assuming that this

organization is all extensively mapped out inside some type of central

genetic directory, when in fact it relies to a very large extent on

the communicatory nature of closely associated cells and their

response to chemical and possibly electrical signals.

> > Although this process is most well-described and well-characterized in

> > fungi, if you do a search for " HLA gene conversion " on PubMed you will

> > see numerous reports of previously unidentified HLA genes in certain

> Previously unidentified does not prove to be new, additional material

> and the function of the new genes would have to be observed over

> generations.

Not for the purpose for which this was brought up here, which was to

demonstrate that new genetic material is introduced into the genome,

which you have so far denied.

> Are these just redundant genes that are there as filler?

The HLA genes regulate what peptides are recognized as antigens.

> Do they have a distinct function? For macroevolution to occur, we

> must not only have new distinct material, but also functional and

> beneficial material that is dependent for the species survival and

> continues for successive generations so that it continues and

> increases the survivability of the new species, and the new species

> must not be able to breed again with its ancestor.

Again, for discussion to occur, we must proceed one step at a time.

We can discuss possible mechanisms for introducing the genetic changes

that macroevolution would require separately from whether in each case

they lead to an event that proves the direct observation of geological

time processes in real time.

> > populations like island populations that appear to have been created

> > through this process, and at the very least plausibly attributed to

> > this process based on the fact that these *new* and *different* and

> > *completely functional* genes are clearly a rearrangement of

> > functional units taken from different genes and combined.

> Much more than this is required for macroevolution to occur. And the

> more complex the organism, the more complex will be the process of any

> point addition to the genetic code, there are more things to go wrong.

Again, the point is the demonstration that new genetic material is

introduced into the organism in an *organized* fashion. Not each

specific point must in itself demonstrate the direct observation of a

macroevolutionary event.

> I really do not see anything significantly new in your successive

> discussions. Whatever the mechanisms we observe in variation, they

> must be interpreted through the observation of how those mechanisms

> play out in the gene pools. Your continued explanations of various

> genetic processes are not able to interpolate to change our

> observations of what is happening amongst populations of organisms

> throughout nature. What we see microscopically in the genes is

> totally dependent on how they play out in the gene pools of real life

> organism in nature. Apes are still apes and there is no evidence in

> the genes that they have been anything else, but that they exhibit

> limits to variation.

Really. Not an ape mitochondria. Had you bothered to be responsive

to the discussion of endosymbiotic theory, perhaps we would have

gotten to discuss the mysterious presence of bacteria-like genes in

mitochondria and chloroplasts.

>Hybridization also exhibits limits to variation.

> Bacteria are still bacteria. For all the gene swapping and variation

> exhibited in bacteria, bacteria are still bacteria. I repeat this

> because that is what nature repeats over and over and over as long as

> we humans have been observing bacteria.

As I pointed out in the last email, the evidence strongly suggests we

are watching certain protists acquire new organelles like

chloroplasts. This is more convincing evidence for the endosymbiotic

theory of chloroplast origins than the fact that you do not see

bacteria randomly morphing into other beings is evidence that these

changes do not take place. You are aware, of course, that

evolutionary theory does NOT predict that we would see apes producing

anything other than apes. Your claim in an yesterday's email was that

the situation is different for bacteria because of their rapid

regeneration; I pointed out that this was not so, and we should see

the most rapid development in protists, who have the basic rudimentary

requirements such as larger amounts of DNA, mitochondria and so on,

who do not produce on a rapid scale. And I pointed out endosymbiosis

as one such mechanism. I do not recall seeing a response from you on

this point.

Chris

=======

REFERENCE 1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology

The most scientifically rigorous method of confirming this prediction

is to demonstrate a positive corellation between phylogeny and

stratigraphy, i.e. a positive corellation between the order of taxa in

a phylogenetic tree and the geological order in which those taxa first

appear and last appear (whether for living or extinct intermediates).

For instance, within the error inherent in the fossil record,

prokaryotes should appear first, followed by simple multicellular

animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, fish, amphibians,

reptiles, mammals, etc., as shown in Figure 1. Contrary to the

erroneous (and unreferenced) opinions of some anti-evolutionists (e.g.

Wise 1994, p. 225-226), studies from the past ten years addressing

this very issue have confirmed that there is indeed a positive

corellation between phylogeny and stratigraphy, with statistical

significance (Benton 1998; Benton and Hitchin 1996; Benton and Hitchin

1997; Benton et al. 1999; Benton et al. 2000; Benton and Storrs 1994;

Clyde and Fisher 1997; Hitchin and Benton 1997; Huelsenbeck 1994;

Norell and Novacek 1992a; Norell and Novacek 1992b; Wills 1999). Using

three different measures of phylogeny-stratigraphy correlation [the

RCI, GER, and SCI (Ghosts 2.4 software, Wills 1999)], a high positive

correlation was found between the standard phylogenetic tree portrayed

in Figure 1 and the stratigraphic range of the same taxa, with very

high statistical significance (P < 0.0001) (this work, Ghosts input

file available upon request).

As another specific example, an early analysis published in Science by

Mark Norell and Novacek (Norell and Novacek 1992b) examined 24

different taxa of vertebrates (teleosts, amniotes, reptiles,

synapsids, diapsids, lepidosaurs, squamates, two orders of dinosaurs,

two orders of hadrosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, higher mammals, primates,

rodents, ungulates, artiodactyls, ruminants, elephantiformes,

brontotheres, tapiroids, chalicotheres, Chalicotheriinae, and equids).

For each taxa, the phylogenetic position of known fossils was compared

with the stratigraphic position of the same fossils. A positive

correlation was found for all of the 24 taxa, 18 of which were

statistically significant. Note that the correlation theoretically

could have been negative. A statistically significant negative

correlation would indicate that, in general, organisms rooted deeply

in the phylogeny are found in more recent strata—a strong

macroevolutionary inconsistency. However, no negative correlations

were observed.

[snip]

Additionally, if the correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy is

due to common descent, we would expect the correlation to improve over

longer geological time frames (since the relative error associated

with the fossil record decreases). This is in fact observed (Benton et

al. 1999). We also would expect the correlation to improve, not to get

worse, as more fossils are discovered, and this has also been observed

(Benton and Storrs 1994).

==============

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

About Dr. Lynn Margulis and her work Acquiring Genomes

" Probably her most important scientific contribution is the

endosymbiotic theory of the origin of mitochondria as separate

organisms that long ago entered a symbiotic relationship with

eukaryotic cells through endosymbiosis (see also symbiogenesis). "

Cute and creative. The evolutionary model keeps evolving. A little

observation mixed with massive amounts of conjecture about supposed

millions of years worth of assumptions. There continue to be

conflicting speculive renditions.

A flattering review says,

" The result of thirty years of delving into a vast, mostly arcane

literature, this is the first attempt to go beyond – and reveal the

severe limitations of – the dogmatic thinking that has dominated

evolutionary biology for almost three generations. Lynn Margulis, whom

E.O. called 'one of the most successful synthetic thinkers in

modern biology,' presents a comprehensive and scientifically supported

theory that directly challenges the assumptions we hold about the

diversity of the living world. "

I admit it is a cool idea and creative synthesis.

Notice how it " directly challenges directly challenges the assumptions

we hold about the diversity of the living world. "

This is an example how evolutionists have greatly diverge and disagree

as to the causes and effects regarding presumed eons of unseen living

development, yet for all the disagreement as to what is or were the

mechanisms of presumed evolution, it happened. The mechanisms are in

debate. What theoretical organisms transformed into which is in

debate. Whether evolution of totally new kinds was gradual or sudden

is in debate. Disagreement abound, and radical new explanations that

supplant the previous explanations rise up in triumph. Yet let an

evolutionary scientist conclude through years of his own evolutionary

research that evolution is not possible, and see how quickly he is

dethroned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

As a result of this recent conclusion that merely 20000 genes contain

viable information for the blueprint of life, conclusions are being

made that we really still know very little about genetics and that

there are other factors which control traits such as RNA coexisting

with DNA. Since we know so little about the actual functions of the

genetic code, it seems premature to even use arguments referring to

genes, therefore it may be more reasonable to discuss traits. One

recent article states that as a result of the discovery that only

25000 genes affect heredity, there is especially little we know about

how genetics relate to the genes. Genetics was a field that existed

long before the discovery of genes, and now it seems that genes are

not all that we thought they were. There seem to be other controlling

factors that we do not yet understand. In that case, to claim that

genes contain the mechanisms to induce whole new organs and organism

is sorely premature, and a leap of unobserved conjecture. Seeing is

believing, and we are not seeing evolution on a grand scale. In spite

of all this new information, organisms are not observed to perform the

great feats of transformation attributed to them, only small everyday

kinds of things which are still amazing none the less.

> If a new heart chamber develops,

> for example, it must be connected to the properly to venal AND

> arterial connections AND the nerves must be connected right AND the

> valves must be in the right place AND it must not leak AND it must not

> be too large AND it must not constrict the flow of blood AND the new

> changes must not interfere with the functioning of other organs and

> organ systems, etc. By the time the organism makes complex new gene

> sequences, it will die do to waiting for the right combinations.

This is ridiculous. If a new chamber of the heart is to develop, it

does not need a new gene for each lipid in the membrane and for each

three-dimensional coordinate a blood vessel or nerve travels. Each

cell already has the same genome. There is no requirement for a gene

for each chamber or for each part of the chamber. Instead, what is

needed is a change in the mix of signals that influence

differentiation and embryonic development. The direction of the

nerves and blood vessels is not directed by genes! How many genes do

you think we even have? We have about 20,000 and we'd need millions

if we had the incomprehensibly inefficient system of development you

are proposing. Nerves and blood vessels reach their target through

chemical signaling systems that communicate directly with the target.

No new gene required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> About Dr. Lynn Margulis and her work Acquiring Genomes

[...]

> Cute and creative. The evolutionary model keeps evolving.

Of course it does. This is what science does. New observations lead

to new hypotheses, which in turn lead to knew experiments and

collections of data that lead to the development of new theories or

expansion or rendition of old ones. Like every other science.

> A little

> observation mixed with massive amounts of conjecture about supposed

> millions of years worth of assumptions. There continue to be

> conflicting speculive renditions.

>

> A flattering review says,

>

> " The result of thirty years of delving into a vast, mostly arcane

> literature, this is the first attempt to go beyond – and reveal the

> severe limitations of – the dogmatic thinking that has dominated

> evolutionary biology for almost three generations. Lynn Margulis, whom

> E.O. called 'one of the most successful synthetic thinkers in

> modern biology,' presents a comprehensive and scientifically supported

> theory that directly challenges the assumptions we hold about the

> diversity of the living world. "

I think you should give authors and dates for these quotes. This

review must be from the early or mid-1980s.

This is what Freeman, _Biological Science_ (2005) has to say:

" In 1981 Lynn Margulis expanded on a radical hypothesis -- first

proposed in the nineteenth century -- to explain the origin of the

mitochondria. " Then, after presenting a short summary of the large

amount of circumstantial evidence that supported its plausibility, it

goes on: " Although these data are impressive, they are only consistent

with the theory. Stated another way, they do not exclude other

explanations. Years after Margulis began to champion this theory,

however, data emerged that persuaded virtually all biologists that the

endosymbiosis theory was correct. "

Additionally, _Molecular Biology of the Cell_ (2004), the lead author

of which is Bruce Alberts, the head of the National Academy of the

Sciences, has a large section on the genetics of the mitochondria and

chloroplasts, which uses the endosymbiosis theory because it is

overwhelmingly supported by the genetics of these organelles and has

overwhelming power to explain the genetics of these organelles.

So, you're review in which the author states that the theory directly

challenges mainstream assumptions is certainly out of date. If your

purpose is to show that it directly challenged assumptions at one time

and eventually came to dominate, then I acknowledge that, as that is

exactly what happens in all science.

> I admit it is a cool idea and creative synthesis.

> Notice how it " directly challenges directly challenges the assumptions

> we hold about the diversity of the living world. "

Held. 25 years ago.

> This is an example how evolutionists have greatly diverge and disagree

> as to the causes and effects regarding presumed eons of unseen living

> development, yet for all the disagreement as to what is or were the

> mechanisms of presumed evolution, it happened.

Only virtually everyone accepts the 19th century endosymbiotic theory

of mitochondria and chloroplasts as expanded on by Margulis in 1981.

> The mechanisms are in

> debate. What theoretical organisms transformed into which is in

> debate. Whether evolution of totally new kinds was gradual or sudden

> is in debate. Disagreement abound, and radical new explanations that

> supplant the previous explanations rise up in triumph. Yet let an

> evolutionary scientist conclude through years of his own evolutionary

> research that evolution is not possible, and see how quickly he is

> dethroned!

Can you give an example of an evolutionist who comes to this

conclusion and has published a coherent explanation?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/7/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> As a result of this recent conclusion that merely 20000 genes contain

> viable information for the blueprint of life, conclusions are being

> made that we really still know very little about genetics and that

> there are other factors which control traits such as RNA coexisting

> with DNA.

There are a number of mechanisms we already know of to explain this.

We might not necessarily understand every single detail of how these

mechanisms relate to these phenomena, but we have already documented

that:

-- We possess machinery necessary to recombine genes from gene

segments. This is, for example, how the trillions of unique

antibodies and T cell receptors are made out of a fairly small amount

of genetic material.

-- After mRNA is translated, it can be spliced in different,

controlled ways. This is, for example, how each subclass of antibody

specific for a particular antigen can be made into an IgG, IgM, IgD,

IgE, IgA, or any of the various subclasses thereof, all drawn from the

same gene specific for that antibody, which was one of trillions of

genes to be manufactured within the cell by recombining gene segments.

-- It is also conceivable that reading frame shifts -- where the

reading of the code begins at a different place so the gene is read

differently -- could be a regulated process allowing us to read more

proteins.

> Since we know so little about the actual functions of the

> genetic code,

We actually do know a lot about the genetic code. The fact that there

is much more we don't know does not negate what we do know. We do

know, for example, that genes are a basic unit of heredity, that genes

are required to code for proteins, many of the molecular details of

these processes, and so on. None of this is negated by the revelation

that we have not discovered everything yet.

>it seems premature to even use arguments referring to

> genes, therefore it may be more reasonable to discuss traits. One

> recent article states that as a result of the discovery that only

> 25000 genes affect heredity, there is especially little we know about

> how genetics relate to the genes. Genetics was a field that existed

> long before the discovery of genes, and now it seems that genes are

> not all that we thought they were. There seem to be other controlling

> factors that we do not yet understand. In that case, to claim that

> genes contain the mechanisms to induce whole new organs and organism

> is sorely premature, and a leap of unobserved conjecture.

If this is true, your best argument is not that macroevolution can not

occur, but simply that we may or may not have discovered its

mechanisms.

Your argument of irreducible complexity has rested on genes. You

said, for example, that if an organism was to develop a new chamber of

the heart, it would need yet another gene to guide the blood vessels

to the right place, yet another gene to guide the nerves to the right

place, and yet another gene to make sure the new heart chamber doesn't

" leak. "

Previous and simultaneous to this, you have consistently and

persistently argued that " no new genetic material " is introduced into

a genome.

Not only are all of these entirely erroneous, but they all rest on

genetics; you now argue that we cannot formulate our arguments on

genetics. Which is it?

> Seeing is

> believing, and we are not seeing evolution on a grand scale.

You're applying a double standard to evolution. You would not apply

this burden of evidence to anything else except this one, single

theory. You do not apply it to subatomic particles; you do not apply

it to the chemical understanding of semi-conductors that your computer

runs on; you would, I hope, not apply it to our justice system. There

is simply no other theory that anyone would insist one must actually

directly see with the naked eye to accept.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

,

the only one with a " knee jerking " reaction is apparently you. I cannot be held

accountable for what someone else does, only what I do. Evolution and Creation

simply do not mix,and because a college professor chooses to teach evolution

does not make it right. We've been having a good time with our little debate, no

name slinging has gone on. It is quite simple, you don't have to open the

thread, when you see the topic why don't you simply delete it, and don't be so

judgmental on people such as myself. And please, the name calling is so

childish.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

On 9/6/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

>

> honestly, I've never met a Christian who believed in evolution. When someone

comes

> and says that the bibles says such and such, I always ask for chapter and

verse. I'm

> asking you where you get your information from on the Christians viewpoint

on evolution,

> as far as believing in it.

> Sorry

>

As an example, I had two professors in college who taught aspects of

evolution (one anthropologist and one geologist) and both were

Christians. Neither saw any difficulty in reconciling the two. And

these were people who had actually studied both the science and the

religion, not just people having knee-jerk reactions.

There doesn't have to be any conflict. What conflict exists is

artificial and the result of ignorance or obduracy on one side or the

other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/7/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> ,

> the only one with a " knee jerking " reaction is apparently you. I cannot be

held

> accountable for what someone else does, only what I do. Evolution and

Creation

> simply do not mix,and because a college professor chooses to teach evolution

> does not make it right. We've been having a good time with our little debate,

no

> name slinging has gone on. It is quite simple, you don't have to open the

thread,

> when you see the topic why don't you simply delete it, and don't be so

> judgmental on people such as myself. And please, the name calling is so

> childish.

>

And it's what you are doing that I'm taking issue with. When you make

comments like (paraphrasing) " if humans came from monkeys then why do

monkeys still exist " and " I don't know any Christians who believe in

evolution " you're making it crystal clear that you haven't studied

evolution at all and don't have any interest in being open-minded

about it. When you deny the possibility of something you clearly

don't understand (or want to understand) that's pretty much a textbook

definition of " knee-jerk reaction. " You're even condemning those

professors I talked about without having any idea what they taught.

I'm not asking for the thread to stop, I'm encouraging it to continue.

But what does your blanket condemnation of evolution and refusal to

be posessed of any knowledge about it contribute? That's my

frustration. It's not name calling, it's a simple rehash of words put

in a public forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are as " closed

minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution. Yes, it is sadly

true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that everything was created by

God. And you statement on " condemning those professors " you had talked about,

explain that one to me please. And unless you are the moderator of this board,

then what right have you to tell me whether I can or cannot post on this thread?

And by the way, what textbook did you get your definition out of?

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

On 9/7/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> ,

> the only one with a " knee jerking " reaction is apparently you. I cannot be

held

> accountable for what someone else does, only what I do. Evolution and

Creation

> simply do not mix,and because a college professor chooses to teach evolution

> does not make it right. We've been having a good time with our little

debate, no

> name slinging has gone on. It is quite simple, you don't have to open the

thread,

> when you see the topic why don't you simply delete it, and don't be so

> judgmental on people such as myself. And please, the name calling is so

> childish.

>

And it's what you are doing that I'm taking issue with. When you make

comments like (paraphrasing) " if humans came from monkeys then why do

monkeys still exist " and " I don't know any Christians who believe in

evolution " you're making it crystal clear that you haven't studied

evolution at all and don't have any interest in being open-minded

about it. When you deny the possibility of something you clearly

don't understand (or want to understand) that's pretty much a textbook

definition of " knee-jerk reaction. " You're even condemning those

professors I talked about without having any idea what they taught.

I'm not asking for the thread to stop, I'm encouraging it to continue.

But what does your blanket condemnation of evolution and refusal to

be posessed of any knowledge about it contribute? That's my

frustration. It's not name calling, it's a simple rehash of words put

in a public forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm asking you to consider more

carefully what you say. Do it or not, I don't really care. The part

about condemning the professors referred to the phrase " that doesn't

make it right " you used with respect to their teaching of evolution.

Anyhow, I'm not a christian, if that's what you mean by closed-minded.

But I've read a whole lot of the bible and a whole lot of other

writing about it because I find it interesting. My point is simply

this: if you're going to make blanket statements about something

being wrong or out of line with your faith, shouldn't you actually

know something about it? I'm making an effort to understand

christianity (though I haven't said anything about it anyway), despite

the fact that I don't " believe " in it (more complex than that but I'm

about to get on a plane).

What's the whole reference to a definition and a textbook? Did I miss

something?

etc. Off for the weekend, so no more rudeness until Sunday. Dude.

On 9/7/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

>

> its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are as " closed

minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution. Yes, it is sadly

true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that everything was created by

God. And you statement on " condemning those professors " you had talked about,

explain that one to me please. And unless you are the moderator of this board,

then what right have you to tell me whether I can or cannot post on this thread?

And by the way, what textbook did you get your definition out of?

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " " <bible770@...>

>. Yes, it is sadly

> true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that everything was created by

> God.

I'm not sure why you would be participating in this discussion then, because

obviously there is no reasoning with you. If there is a God, he laughs at people

who worship him so simplistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

lol...have a safe flight.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm asking you to consider more

carefully what you say. Do it or not, I don't really care. The part

about condemning the professors referred to the phrase " that doesn't

make it right " you used with respect to their teaching of evolution.

Anyhow, I'm not a christian, if that's what you mean by closed-minded.

But I've read a whole lot of the bible and a whole lot of other

writing about it because I find it interesting. My point is simply

this: if you're going to make blanket statements about something

being wrong or out of line with your faith, shouldn't you actually

know something about it? I'm making an effort to understand

christianity (though I haven't said anything about it anyway), despite

the fact that I don't " believe " in it (more complex than that but I'm

about to get on a plane).

What's the whole reference to a definition and a textbook? Did I miss

something?

etc. Off for the weekend, so no more rudeness until Sunday. Dude.

On 9/7/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

>

> its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are as " closed

minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution. Yes, it is sadly

true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that everything was created by

God. And you statement on " condemning those professors " you had talked about,

explain that one to me please. And unless you are the moderator of this board,

then what right have you to tell me whether I can or cannot post on this thread?

And by the way, what textbook did you get your definition out of?

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

,

> its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are as " closed

minded " on

>the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution. Yes, it is sadly

true, I do not believe in

>evolution. I believe that everything was created by God.

The theory of evolution does not propose who did or did not create the

evolutionary process any more than a theory of spontaneous generation

would. If you choose to believe that your faith dictates a specific

way in which God created life that is in conflict with evolution, by

all means do so. But you cannot contrast the concepts of evolution

and " everything was created by God " as if they are actually in

conflict, because they are not.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

no, He actually " covets " the worship of His people....

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " " <bible770@...>

>. Yes, it is sadly

> true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that everything was created

by

> God.

I'm not sure why you would be participating in this discussion then, because

obviously there is no reasoning with you. If there is a God, he laughs at people

who worship him so simplistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Evolutionists agree that the eye of octopuses and the mammalian eye do

not have common origin, yet function and form of these organs are

strikingly similar, including features such a as muscle position,

retina, iris, rods and cones. There are many other analogous traits

held by animals presumed to have common ancestry or presumed not to

have common ancestry. Since we were not there to observe the presumed

branches of common or divergent ancestry, it is highly speculative,

especially in light of hereditary limits currently observed. Note for

example, with massive amount of data and experimentation done on fruit

fly mutations and heredity, fruit fly heredity shows definite limits

of variation, in spite of numerous mutations and recombinations

observed.

As we see with the analogous traits of octopuses and mammals. It does

not follow that analogy of traits proves common origin. This is not

only true with separate species, but with the same individual

organism. For example, the forelimbs and hind limbs of animals have

no evidence that the forelimbs evolved from the hind limbs or visa

versa. In the evolutionary model there is no explanation of how, as

an animal evolves, the forelimbs know to keep or grow extra toes or

features in analogy to the hind limbs. If a goat were to mutate an

extra toe that could become theoretically beneficial, evolution does

not explain that the fore toes will then reproduce from the hind toes.

Again, analogy does not follow common origin either in generations of

different kinds of animals nor in the same animal.

In the same way, the model that bacteria evolved into mitochondria

follows the same fallacy of the type that would assume that octopuses

evolved into mammals or that two toed forelegs evolved into two toed

hind legs. Bacteria have analogies to mitochondria and chloroplasts,

but the model lacks observational validity. Firstly, this process is

not observed in real time. Secondly, since we cannot go back and test

the processes that supposedly would have produced mitochondria from

bacteria, then we lacking observational data based the past. Thirdly,

it does not follow that analogy proves common origin without observing

common origin. Fourthly, we are lacking experimental data to produce

mitochondria from bacteria in real time laboratory conditions. Anyone

of these points alone can render the logic behind the syntrophic

hypothesis invalid. The validity of any one or more of my above

points multiplies the invalidity.

That experimental data and observational data are lacking is

illustrated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote :

" The origin of the endomembrane system and mitochondria are also

disputed. The phagotrophic hypothesis states the membranes originated

with the development of endocytosis and later specialized;

mitochondria were acquired by ingestion, like plastids. The syntrophic

hypothesis states that the proto-eukaryote relied on the

proto-mitochondrion for food, and so ultimately grew to surround it;

the membranes originate later, in part thanks to mitochondrial genes

(the hydrogen hypothesis is one particular version). "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

----

As far as the issue of new genetic material. There is a step in my

logic that has to be clarified. I did not state that macoevolution

(per the my discussed definition) is proved if we observe new material

added to the genome. I stated that macroevolution is not possible,

since no new material is added. You have met my challenge to

demonstrate new material being added. But the converse is not true. I

never stated that new material being added to the genome would prove

macroevoltion. Many more requirements would be needed as I explained

in a previous post.

Not only would we have to demonstrate that new material is being added

to the gemone, but we would also have to demonstrate that the new

material can generate complex traits and organs and organ systems. It

is one thing to observe that genetic material is being added, and it

is wholly another to discover why and how, for example, a new chamber

for a heart can be structurally added, not just proteins and lipids,

but a complex arrangement of structures, oriented just right in

complex ways so as not to kill the organism before it evolved to a

next level. Evolution does not even remotely explain the origin of

complex and new organs or organ parts. Mathematically, random

mutations would kill an organism before complex new fully functioning

systems would come " online. " Masses of tissue mutating in slow

progression over generations, would not only have to project what they

are trying to form, but also have to be non-obstructive to the

survival of the species for macroevotion to happen on a grand scale.

All you are describing are minute variations and minute changes, which

begs the question, " How do these minute mechanisms produce wholly new

organisms? " Natural selection is insufficient to explain how new

organ systems arise, only how genes are selected out of the gene pool

to create less variety and viability under varied environments.

Natural selection, for example, is able to reduce the gene pool not

increase variety, and that extremely rapidly as we observe currently.

Observational heredity also works against origins of species with new

and unique organ systems while instead demonstrating that as varieties

isolate from the gene pool, they loose traits as preserved from the

whole and become less likely to survive. Hybridization also

demonstrates a general lessening of viability for survival as with

tendencies for sterility.

> [...]

>

> > Cute and creative. The evolutionary model keeps evolving.

>

> Of course it does. This is what science does. New observations lead

> to new hypotheses, which in turn lead to knew experiments and

> collections of data that lead to the development of new theories or

> expansion or rendition of old ones. Like every other science.

>

> > A little

> > observation mixed with massive amounts of conjecture about supposed

> > millions of years worth of assumptions. There continue to be

> > conflicting speculive renditions.

> >

> > A flattering review says,

> >

> > " The result of thirty years of delving into a vast, mostly arcane

> > literature, this is the first attempt to go beyond – and reveal the

> > severe limitations of – the dogmatic thinking that has dominated

> > evolutionary biology for almost three generations. Lynn Margulis, whom

> > E.O. called 'one of the most successful synthetic thinkers in

> > modern biology,' presents a comprehensive and scientifically supported

> > theory that directly challenges the assumptions we hold about the

> > diversity of the living world. "

>

> I think you should give authors and dates for these quotes. This

> review must be from the early or mid-1980s.

>

> This is what Freeman, _Biological Science_ (2005) has to say:

>

> " In 1981 Lynn Margulis expanded on a radical hypothesis -- first

> proposed in the nineteenth century -- to explain the origin of the

> mitochondria. " Then, after presenting a short summary of the large

> amount of circumstantial evidence that supported its plausibility, it

> goes on: " Although these data are impressive, they are only consistent

> with the theory. Stated another way, they do not exclude other

> explanations. Years after Margulis began to champion this theory,

> however, data emerged that persuaded virtually all biologists that the

> endosymbiosis theory was correct. "

>

> Additionally, _Molecular Biology of the Cell_ (2004), the lead author

> of which is Bruce Alberts, the head of the National Academy of the

> Sciences, has a large section on the genetics of the mitochondria and

> chloroplasts, which uses the endosymbiosis theory because it is

> overwhelmingly supported by the genetics of these organelles and has

> overwhelming power to explain the genetics of these organelles.

>

> So, you're review in which the author states that the theory directly

> challenges mainstream assumptions is certainly out of date. If your

> purpose is to show that it directly challenged assumptions at one time

> and eventually came to dominate, then I acknowledge that, as that is

> exactly what happens in all science.

>

> > I admit it is a cool idea and creative synthesis.

>

> > Notice how it " directly challenges directly challenges the assumptions

> > we hold about the diversity of the living world. "

>

> Held. 25 years ago.

>

> > This is an example how evolutionists have greatly diverge and disagree

> > as to the causes and effects regarding presumed eons of unseen living

> > development, yet for all the disagreement as to what is or were the

> > mechanisms of presumed evolution, it happened.

>

> Only virtually everyone accepts the 19th century endosymbiotic theory

> of mitochondria and chloroplasts as expanded on by Margulis in 1981.

>

> > The mechanisms are in

> > debate. What theoretical organisms transformed into which is in

> > debate. Whether evolution of totally new kinds was gradual or sudden

> > is in debate. Disagreement abound, and radical new explanations that

> > supplant the previous explanations rise up in triumph. Yet let an

> > evolutionary scientist conclude through years of his own evolutionary

> > research that evolution is not possible, and see how quickly he is

> > dethroned!

>

> Can you give an example of an evolutionist who comes to this

> conclusion and has published a coherent explanation?

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

> <B>MODERATOR:</B> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

???? Connie, what are you talking about?

EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

Oh then She just HAS to be doing both when She reads this.

Connie

>

> no, He actually " covets " the worship of His people....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

,

> I've been thinking some more on this and some of your other posts,

> and have some new questions (lucky you :). In your opinion, would it

> be correct to say that the natural laws themselves appear inherently

> non-random and purposeful?

The natural laws are self-evidently decidedly non-random. There could

nine or twelve dimensions, but there are three. There could be three,

five, or six fundamental charges, but there are positive and negative.

There is simply nothing random about it.

Granted, this is a simplification because the three-dimensional

experience and the charges may themselves be a result of more

complicated physical phenomena (such as the collapsing of other

dimensions) but the same logic applies to the fundamental causative

phenomena, whatever they are.

Randomness and natural law are fundamentally opposed to each other.

When we speak of " randomness " occuring we are taking a short-cut to

mean that something is random with respect to the potential additional

interference with what would naturally happen, but what is implicitly

assumed is that what occurs is obedient to the decidedly non-random

natural laws.

Whether this is " purposeful " or not is more of a matter of guess or faith.

> Related to that, I also wanted to run by you another area under the

> ID umbrella and see how you'd characterize it. I saw a documentary

> called The Privileged Planet (based on the book Rare Earth) and it

> basically challenges the conclusions of Carl Sagan in his book Pale

> Blue Dot that there are likely tons of Earth-like planets out there

> (I honestly don't know much about Sagan except he was an atheist who

> gets a lot of face time on the Discovery Channel). Anyhow, in this

> documentary they assert that the universe is largely very hostile to

> life, especially terrestrial life, and delve into the numerous

> variables that all had to converge for Earth to sustain complex life-

> being within the narrow hospitable zones of the galaxy and solar

> system, planet of the right size and composition, right size moon,

> type of sun, type of atmosphere, etc, etc. Then they take it one

> step further and make the observation that the very conditions that

> make a planet habitable coincidentally (or not) also make it ideal

> for observing the universe and making scientific discoveries, which

> some believe implies purpose.

I haven't read Sagan but I have no idea how he could possibly conclude

that there is any other planets that are anything like earth.

Likewise, I have no idea how anyone would contest this. Maybe there is

some evidence by which we could infer what planets are like in other

solar systems but I don't know what it is.

I don't think it necessarily implies purpose, unless the random chance

of those things occuring is such that we would not expect it to happen

given the estimated number of planets in the universe. I don't know

whether or not that is true.

> They never assert that Earth is or was

> the only habitable planet, only that Sagan's conclusions that we are

> one of a million earths which implies random insignificance and

> puposelessness were unsupported by what we know about the universe.

I don't see how a million earths would imply that each earth has no

purpose anymore than 6 billion people imply that each person has no

purpose.

> Not to open a new can of worms, but what the hey, I was getting

> bored of evolution anyway :)

You'll have to hit up Deanna; she knows way more about planets and

stuff than me.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi ,

I will not neglect to answer your questions and statements about

endosymbiosis and finger/toe development, but I will probably delay it

until tonight or tomorrow, and continue to discuss the heart for now.

> New set of wings, suggest duplication of an organ already existing.

> With a new heart chamber, a great challenge would be not just to

> duplicate an entire thing again or part of a thing but to generate

> parts that form a unique function and have unique orientation and

> structure.

You are right: they are not completely analogous. They do, however,

have similarities. The phenomenon illustrates a clear example of how

mutation-induced variation is not " random " in the sense of putting any

random molecule in any random new place, but instead works with the

rearrangement of functional units. You are correct that the

development of additional chambers of the heart is more complex than

the development of a second pair of wings, but since we do directly

observe the latter, it is helpful to see how such a complete structure

can be introduced at once without interfering with the function of the

existing wings and even without disrupting the thorax, the proper

segment of which is duplicated along with the set of wings all in one

shot.

> Changing from a two to a three chambered heart, for

> example is not just like duplicating an appendage as a facsimile,

> especially since the heart is asymmetrical, the new chamber cannot be

> identical to any other chamber. How would a new chamber know where > to

> grow? How would the organism know when to grow a new chamber?

In looking at the comparative anatomy of hearts across organisms,

nothing strikes me as a major obstacle to transitioning between these

forms. I don't think they would happen suddenly like the new set of

wings would in fruit flies actually, and I don't think that the

organism would " known " to build the new heart. Although, given some

of the developments in our understanding of mutations that have still

not assimilated into the mainstream understanding of evolution because

they are so poorly understood, there may indeed be a feedback

mechanism " directing " mutation. We will probably find out much more

about this over the next decade, though we would not find out if

biologists became convinced that evolution is impossible.

In any case, the earliest circulatory systems are called open

circulatory systems, found in most non-vertebrates, where the " heart "

just pumps the fluid (called " hemolymph " because it is a cross between

blood and lymph) all over the place into the body cavity and organs

directly absorb it. Annelids such as earthworms have closed

circulatory systems with distinct blood vessels, but have the same

type of simple one-chambered " heart " pumping through these vessels.

Fish have a two-chambered heart. I sincerely doubt they developed

this heart by " making a new chamber. " Rather, a simple invagination

of the heart casing could begin the separation of atria and

ventricles. The eventual continuation of this tissue into the heart

would form a septum and a valve that would separate the atrium from

the ventricle.

Since the fish has a one-track circulatory system, nothing much

changes about the nature of circulation from the system of a

one-chamber heart. In the one-chamber primitive " heart, " there is an

incoming vessel and an outgoing vessel. This doesn't change in the

least in the development of the fish's two-track heart. Rather, the

septum is formed in the middle of the heart, separating the atrium

from the ventricle, and the portion of the heart that contains the

previously established incoming blood vessel becomes by definition the

atrium and the portion that contains the previously established

outgoing blood vessel becomes by definition the ventricle.

What would encourage this purpose? I'm not positive, but I suppose

that any invagination or partial septum would back the atrium up

enough to concentrate the blood and increase the delivery of a pump.

In fact, I think the nature of the heart's innervation would play a

factor in the benefit of this development. My understanding is that

even in worms, the innervation causes a peristaltic wave across the

heart. If this is the case, then the incoming portion of the heart

would already be " beating " before the outgoing portion of the heart

was " beating, " which would form the basis for the initial atrial

contraction and the subsequent ventricular contraction.

I'm not sure if the peristaltic action is responsive to pressure

buildup within the worm's heart or not, but if it is, this further

elucidates how chamber formation would develop. If it is not, such

response could have developed in the primitive fish prior to chamber

formation or in a fish predecessor. The benefit WITHOUT chambers is

obvious -- you get the best pumping if you pump when the heart is

full.

This would especially cause any invagination or septum formation,

however partial, to be beneficial in the fish. Any even partial

formation of a septum separating the atrium and the ventricle will

delay the ventricular contraction by causing the atrium to fill first.

This would allow the ventricle to receive the necessary pressure

increase very quickly rather than waiting to refill and can put more

effort into a greater contraction while the atrium simultaneously

collects blood for the next ventricular contraction, allowing the

heart to do both collect and pump blood at once.

I see no reason why this wouldn't provide modest benefits if it

occurred gradually, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that

an intermediate would be lethal in any way at all.

The first septum would not necessarily have a " valve " but could just

have an open space. The " valves " are essentially flaps of tissue with

little cusps on the ventricular side that fill up with blood, pushing

them back when the ventricle is full. These are of benefit, but they

simply make the differentiation of the ventricle and atrium more

beneficial. Their absence does not make the septum useless and

certainly does not make the septum harmful.

The frog heart appears to simply have arrived at two atria by a

similar invagination/septum formation between the fish atrium. It

would therefore not seem to be a " new atrium " " added " to the heart.

If there is any obstacle of complexity in this, it isn't the

" addition " of the " new chamber, " but would be the formation of a

two-circuit circulatory system instead of a one-circuit circulatory

system.

Nevertheless, there is nothing " irreducible " about this complexity,

especially considering the ability of blood vessels to find their way

to targets without any kind of genetic coordinate system. Really the

only difference between the fish and amphibian one- and two-circuit

systems is that the lungs are diverted back to the left atrium in the

amphibian rather than continuing to the body. This can be

accomplished essentially by a single blood vessel.

I wonder how this changes from a tadpole to a mature frog. My

understanding is that primitive " lungs " of amphibians are believed to

be derived from the swim bladder and not the gills.

The " five-chambered heart " of lizards and turtles supports the idea

gradual formation of septums, because this " five-chambered heart " is

in fact a three-chambered heart in which there are two atria and one

ventricle, but wherein the ventricle has a substantial development of

two partial septums. In this model, the septums are substantially

effective at isolating the oxygenated blood on one side of the

ventricle, but it still mixes.

In fact, the amphibian system is very similar in this respect, in that

it is a large number of partial septums. It has a larger number of

these partial septums but it is considered three-chambered rather than

five-chambered because these septums are smaller. They nevertheless

contribute to keeping the oxygenated blood on one side and the

deoxygenated blood on the other, simply by causing the flow of blood

within the interior of the ventricle to get blocked up at numerous

areas.

So both the amphibian heart and the reptile heart seem to be clear

illustrations of intermediates between the single ventricle of the

fish and the entirely separate ventricle of birds and mammals.

Fully functional intermediates. No " new " structures, just the gradual

growth of a separating structure within the original structure. And

in some cases random. The amphibian heart has lots of partial

septums, and they contribute to stopping the backflow. Logically, a

central, larger growth of a septum would be even more effective at

this. Animals that produced fewer larger septums might be selected

for over those that produced more numerous and shorter septums, even

though the latter are functional, simply because the former are more

efficient.

Thus, we see that frogs and other amphibians have many small partial

septums, turtles and lizards have fewer and larger septums, while

crocodiles, birds and mammals have one complete septum -- climbing

right up the phylogenetic tree with evolution. In fact the

step-by-step development of the complexity of the heart follows the

proposed evolutionary lineage quite perfectly.

> Why

> are we not seeing two chambered organisms attempting to evolve a third

> chamber like other kinds of organisms have?

First, I don't know whether we are seeing this or not. If we ARE

seeing it, what we would find is some fish whose atrium is partially

divided by a partial septum, and that some fish lack this partial

septum, and in other fish that have it, it completes the partition to

various degrees.

I simply do not have the knowledge of comparative fish anatomy to know

whether this is found or is not. Do you?

Second, think about how many times evolutionary theory posits that a

three-chambered heart developed from a two-chambered heart. If this

is posited to have happened once, why would we expect to observe it

numerous times over a very short time period?

Second, the need for two atria is a result of the need for a

two-circuit circulatory system, which is in turn a result of the need

to breathe primarily through the air rather than through water. There

is a greater drop in blood pressure when air is respirated across the

lungs, which makes the pressure insufficient to make it through the

peripheral body circulation; on the other hand, a heart that pumps

stronger will damage the sensitive alveoli of the lungs.

Now I don't know that much about the various types of respiratory

systems in fish and amphibians, but the gradual development of air

respiration is obvious. Many fish engage in surface respiration, in

which they inflate their swim bladder to bring them to the surface of

the water, taking in oxygen-rich water in the tissues surrounding

their mouth and possibly even breathing some air in through the mouth.

The amphibian has gills in juvenile form and has primitive lungs that

are more like sacs that probably developed from the swim bladder, and

do not have the sensitive alveoli of mammalian cells but still do have

a greater pressure drop.

There was recently found a partial fossil of what appears to be a fish

that had limbs, and probably used both forms of respiration, perhaps

occasionally crawling to the shore to look for food. Interestingly,

the molly, which is a fish that engages in air surface respiration,

physically pushes itself against rocks to bring its mouth up to the

oxygen-rich surface water and hold itself upright. It is interesting

to speculate that limbs could have facilitated this process in

oxygen-deprived waters. And oxygen-deprived waters may provide stress

that either leads to a greater random mutation rate or turns on the

deliberate mutation systems that we barely understanding. Even stubs

could conceivably assist a fish in using rocks to hold itself upright

and absorb oxygen from the surface. It is further interesting to note

that these fish have an advanced capacity to hold air that they

breathe in through their mouths, in some (maybe all?) cases into the

swim bladder, as this assists in attaining the buoyancy necessary to

reach the surface.

Just today, I was watching one of the few aquatic salamanders swimming

around in a fish tank. They have flat swimming tails and seem almost

like eels. They are highly efficient swimmers, but have little stubs

of hands and feet. Since they feed on earthworms, I'm guessing that

they use these to dig near the shore to obtain their earthworms. Any

aquatic animal that comes to the shore for periods to look for food

will benefit from having an increased ability to use air as a

respiratory medium.

And in this case, if the blood vessles passed through the swim

bladder/primitive lung through the rest of the body circulation

without returning to the heart, it would still be useful by providing

more oxygen to the blood even though it had not be fully deoxygenated.

Blood vessels leading back to the atrium would make it much more

effective so that completely deoxygenated blood could lead to the

primitive lung, but increasing the use of a swim bladder for oxygen

provision would neither be useless in the absence of such a system nor

lethal.

In fact, *partial septums* (septa?) would probably work very much like

the *partial septums* of a frog ventricle once such a second circuit

developed. In the frog ventricle, both the oxygenated blood and the

deoxygenated blood cooexist. They mingle a bit in the middle, but

because of the many small partial septums, they are largely, not

completely, separate. I see absolutely no reason why the two-circuit

circulatory system couldn't codevelop with incomplete septums (septa?

argh!) in a transition amphibian predecessor in exactly the same way.

In any case, to reiterate the essence of my answer:

1) I don't know enough to say that we aren't observing the partial

growth of a septum within the atrium of some fish.

2) We would not expect this to happen over and over again, so if we

are not observing it happening, it is very unsurprising, because there

is no particular pressure on fish to complete any partial division of

the atrium that might be exist without the need for a two-circuit

circulatory system.

3) One could argue that we do in fact see a transitional ventricular

separation in the both the frog and the turtle/lizard heart. In both

cases, we can see how this intermediate is in fact functional but not

ideal and further growth of those separations would lead to more

efficient functioning as seen in bird and mammal hearts.

> For that matter, what

> prevents us from seeing the rapid growth of new features such as new

> heart chambers, if such evolution has occurred in the past? If there

> are such mechanisms that can produce almost immediate generation of

> additional limbs, then what prevents entirely new organs from being

> produced at the same rapid rate?

I don't see any reason to believe that limbs originated all at once.

I suspect, like I wrote above, that they would have developed as

stubs, possibly, perhaps, to make air-surface respiration more

efficient in oxygen-deprived waters. (I just thought of this a few

minutes ago; I'm not sure if it is an original proposition or not --

I'm guessing not.)

Limbs could be duplicated easily, but in most cases this would

probably not be very efficient. This wouldn't necesarily happen as

easily in every species, because the different homeotic genes may be

more or less likely to be modified or duplicated depending on their

placement on chromosomes and any other determinants of vulnerability.

Also, we would be vastly more likely to see these things happen in

organisms that reproduce quickly.

And we do in fact see duplication of wings and even legs growing out

of the head of fruit flies! What on earth would be the benefit of

legs growing out of the eyes, I don't know. I imagine that fruit

flies with legs where the antennaes are would probably be of

definitely decreased fitness!

But both limbs and heart chambers probably developed very gradually,

since it is incredibly easy to conceive of how the intermediates could

be functional and we do in fact see what appear to be intermediate

divisions between ventricles in some species.

By the way, what is your explanation for the presence of a useless and

completely disconnected pelvis or pelvic bones in whales?

> We should be observing entirely new

> organs or organ parts, not just duplicates of what is already there.

I'm not sure what the benefit of having more than four chambers to a

heart would be. But, if there were a reason to have a five-chambered

heart, turtles and lizards have already accomplished a partial

intermediate to such a heart that is actually a three-chambered heart

but which has septa that are so developed that it is actually referred

to as a " five-chambered heart, " often with quotes around

" five-chambered. "

So, I suppose my question for you would be, what gives you the

impression that we AREN'T observing intermediates to ventricular

partitioning?

> Heck, duplication happens all the time with sexual reproduction, but

> duplication of entirely USEFUL new organs and organ parts happens so

> slowly that we are not observing it. In that case, it probably does

> not happen at all.

There are only so many organs that are useful to have. Duplication of

homeotic genes does NOT happen often. It's very rare! Sure, they've

found fruit flies with two sets of wings and with legs on its head,

but it's not like you see any of these animals around if you aren't

carefully examining every damn generation of them in a laboratory.

Duplication of the gene for the dorsal nerve cord could have produced

the basis for a vertebral column, but how many vertebral columns can

you have? These types of duplications are extremely rare, and of

those that occur, very few could be useful.

The fact that they DO occur and that there ARE numerous different

steps in evolution that can be explained by duplications in homeotic

genes suggests to most scientists that a few rare evolutionary

developments have occurred through the duplication of homeotic genes.

But what we DO see happen is the duplication of non-homeotic genes.

And in fact we can see how it happens in certain types of

environmental extremes (incidentally, the environmental extremes ALSO

exert selective pressure, so the two processes of mutation and

selective pressure may not be as dissociated as they are

conventionally thought to be), probably to increase the expression of

a certain gene. But if you have duplications, you also have a certain

degree of redundancy. When you have redundancy, you have the

opportunity to mutate a gene without losing the function of the

original gene, and that way you can get changes that may be

functionless or of only partial usefulness without the potentially

adverse or even lethal maladaption of losing the original established

function.

And we see LOTS of proteins that seem to be a few functional units

just rearranged in different ways. The fact that we observe:

1) duplication of genes to provide redundant genes that can be

modified without losing original functions

2) site-specific recombination wherein functional units of a gene but

not whole genes can be exchanged between different genes to assemble

new genes made of rearranged but established functional units

3) many important proteins that appear to be manufactured in exactly this way

indicates to most scientists who study genes and proteins that

duplication and site-specific recombination are important processes in

the evolution of genes and proteins.

> I will venture to state that limits to variation

> exist in the organism, as is demonstrated by observational heredity.

The kind of heredity we observe is not written in stone. When we

delete the lactase gene from E. coli, we observe that it mutates a

different gene to form a functional lactase gene and *additionally*

mutates a second gene to turn it into a lactose-responsive lactase

promoter to regulate the expression of the first gene and then we

further observe that members of a bacterial colony exchange these

genes with each other in a cooperative fashion.

Interestingly, cooperation and not survival of the fittest! So

ignorant people who grasp onto misinterpretations of observed

evolution to justify Social Darwinism have nothing to do with the

objective evaluation of science that shows evidence for evolution

everywhere.

We observe useful things like this, and we observe useless things like

legs sticking out of fruit fly heads.

Exactly which " observed limits " are you proposing?

> These same kinds of limiting factors are important to the survival of

> kinds and species, and are one of the many reasons why macroevolution

> is not observed and does not happen.

Yes, under normal circumstances we DO do everything in our cellular

power to maintain the stability of our genome against *random*

changes. What mechanisms we have for deliberate site-specific

recombination we know very little about. These may turn out to be

very significant.

But just look at E. coli -- it has two sets of DNA replication

enzymes. It *usually* uses the highly accurate replication enzymes.

When subjected to stress, it whips out a second set of enzymes that

are error-prone. Actually, it is a set of enzymes that are each

error-prone in different ways. And it deliberately mutates its

genome. When the stress is relieved, it returns to maintaining its

genome.

Darwinian gradualism has been steadily and slowly abandoned since the

1970s. We would NOT expect to see every possible type of evolution

occuring at every point in time.

And the fact is that we have no idea what kind of speciation or

macroevolution takes place right now. The highest degree of

biodiversity as well as intraspecific variability is in the tropics.

Who knows what kind of insects are morphing into what kind of who

knows what in the thick of the tropical rainforest.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi ,

> its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are

> as " closed minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution.

> Yes, it is sadly true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that

>everything

> was created by God.

I'm curious -- does this mean you don't believe in erosion because God

created mountains?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...