On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

Miracles are magic. They're effect without mechanism.
You keep asserting Goddidit!, but you never propose a mechanism, just an agent. Noöne ever does. Breathing life into something, or speaking something into existence isn't a mechanism. It doesn't answer "how?" These are magic.

You can call creationism "intelligent design". You can call magic a miracle, but you're just playing with words. Show me a process explicable by known chemistry or physics; otherwise the effect you claim must be assumed to be magic.

There are gradations of what you call creationists believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bacteria can change quickly, but do not evolve into a new species, that is not also a bacteria. The main problem with the bacteria mode of evolution, for higher forms of life, is bacteria make too many changes in terms of a family of siblings. Multicellular creatures would self destruct, if all their cells, down to each organ mutated, throughout their entire development, as fast as bacteria do. Picture every brain cell of the fetus, being slightly different at the genetic level, before they even add branches. The heart and liver would be a mishmash .

What had to happen for the advancement from single to multicellular, was the mutation rates had to be better controlled each cell cycle. Today we have proofreader enzymes to correct these defects. The proofreaders would not benefit bacteria, unless there was a cause and effect mechanism for their need to change.

That is such an incredibly bad argument. People that have no understanding of the sciences often demonstrate that. According to the theory of evolution bacteria cannot evolve into something that is not a bacteria. Bacteria are an entire kingdom of life. The only group bigger is "life". You just made the error of arguing against evolution by saying that it is right. But then true to form you screwed up. Bacteria have a self correcting mechanism too:

https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0960-9822(02)01385-4#:~:text=In%20higher%20organisms%2C%20a%20major,has%20been%20conserved%20through%20evolution.

With bacteria, since each is it own entity, they can mutate quickly, side-by-side, so at least some extended family member can survive or become optimized to any situation. From there a new colony can grow. But higher animals can't just partition all their organs into a dozens of mutant sub-organs parts until one aspect works better and then take over the organ, Evolution itself had to evolve; step up, with better quality control.

With multicellular differentiation, all the different cells use the exact same DNA; like a single mother bacteria. But there is much higher quality control over future of the DNA, with each differentiated cell, using just part of the same DNA. This is done by dialing in the configurational potential. The DNA of the daughter cells starts as condensed chromosomes. Based on how this is unpacked, will define which genes will be used, and therefore which cellular differentiation.

The DNA packing protein are oily or contain long organic side groups; histones (lysine and arginine). The zigzag lines are the oily.

Protein rich in these amino acids create surface tension in water. This surface tension can be lowered by being shielded by the DNA. The DNA will wrap around and help shield the water, from the histone's water and oil effect. As we unpack the DNA, this exposes these protein, again and will increase the surface tension of water, unless we can dispose of the packing proteins; send them to recycle. If we recycle these protein, the unpacked DNA is now at even lower potential, by losing that oily core. There is a difference in water potential between packed and unpacked DNA. As we unpack the DNA and dispose of the packing protein, more of the DNA configuration favors the water side and less the oil side.

One aspect of the DNA always stays packed, except when the DNA is duplicated; centromere. The centromere region is like the icy oily pole of the DNA's configurational gradient; frozen/packed solid. The most unpacked aspects of the DNA are the warmer pole. Based on the ratio, we can tune in any differentiated cell types. Often the last packing protein exposed are not recycled, but remain nearby, to repack the DNA, and adjust the configurational potential to its differentiated sweet spot.

In terms of maintaining the cellular differentiation control, in the human body, so all the organs stay steady, is the gradient created between the blood supply and nervous system found near most of the cells. The blood is the oil side and the nerves represent the water side. The brain also has a blood-brain barrier, which separates the brain, to some extend from the oily side.

The rest of this appears to be typical unsupported rambling involving tidbits of science that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what you mean by magic. That I recognize there are mechanics that put objects like DNA in place. I am not convinced by evidence that there is no superior intelligent unseen power. Just the opposite.

Yes, it is obvious that you believe that. But your beliefs are not only wrong almost all of the time when it comes to evolution. They also appear to be irrational. You lack the ability to justify those beliefs.

 

[Astrophile]

Thanks for that. I understand that life forms mutate. I am pretty sure they cause variations within the gene pools. But -- while the philosophy may be there in reference to the theory of evolution, I do not see the real evidence that fish became apes in the long run. Tiktaalik doesn't do it as far as I am concerned. Be that as it may, however, thank you for your response which was respectful, and that is where I close right now.

Why do you think that Tiktaalik is not transitional between fish and tetrapods? What is there about Tiktaalik that convinces you that it was not descended from Early Devonian sarcopterygian fish and that it cannot be ancestral to Late Devonian tetrapods? Do you think that Tiktaalik came into being by spontaneous generation from mud, or that all Tiktaaliks died out without leaving descendants.

So you believe the universe is all that exists and time is a dimension of it. Therefore you conclude that since time is a part of the universe there is no outside of the universe.

Yes, that is exactly it. According to my understanding, the universe has no boundary, either in space or in time. A Greek philosopher asked what would happen if a person went to the edge of the universe and threw a spear at it. Would the spear bounce back off the edge of the universe or would it disappear when it crossed the boundary?

The same applies to the the universe being unbounded in time. If I understand Stephen Hawking's 'no boundary' hypothesis correctly, if one could go back in time nearly to the origin of the universe one would eventually find oneself travelling along a space dimension and then along a time dimension leading to the future. It is like heading slightly east or west of north and missing the north pole by a few kilometres. At your nearest point to the pole you would travel due east or due west, and later you would be travelling slightly east or west of south.

That being the case you will never figure out where the universe came from, until you run out of time as the duration between your birth and death will have expired.

Enjoy,

That is true. According to the doctors I have less than a year to live; I would prefer it to be less than a month. We are in much the same position; you will probably never figure out where your God came from, and I suspect that the universe is self-existent and without a boundary in either space or time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that Tiktaalik is not transitional between fish and tetrapods? What is there about Tiktaalik that convinces you that it was not descended from Early Devonian sarcopterygian fish and that it cannot be ancestral to Late Devonian tetrapods? Do you think that Tiktaalik came into being by spontaneous generation from mud, or that all Tiktaaliks died out without leaving descendants.



Yes, that is exactly it. According to my understanding, the universe has no boundary, either in space or in time. A Greek philosopher asked what would happen if a person went to the edge of the universe and threw a spear at it. Would the spear bounce back off the edge of the universe or would it disappear when it crossed the boundary?

The same applies to the the universe being unbounded in time. If I understand Stephen Hawking's 'no boundary' hypothesis correctly, if one could go back in time nearly to the origin of the universe one would eventually find oneself travelling along a space dimension and then along a time dimension leading to the future. It is like heading slightly east or west of north and missing the north pole by a few kilometres. At your nearest point to the pole you would travel due east or due west, and later you would be travelling slightly east or west of south.

That is true. According to the doctors I have less than a year to live; I would prefer it to be less than a month. We are in much the same position; you will probably never figure out where your God came from, and I suspect that the universe is self-existent and without a boundary in either space or time.

I am sorry to hear about the time limit. I hope you're not in too much pain. I do look forward to the promises of God being fulfilled. Life without pain...

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that Tiktaalik is not transitional between fish and tetrapods? What is there about Tiktaalik that convinces you that it was not descended from Early Devonian sarcopterygian fish and that it cannot be ancestral to Late Devonian tetrapods? Do you think that Tiktaalik came into being by spontaneous generation from mud, or that all Tiktaaliks died out without leaving descendants.



Yes, that is exactly it. According to my understanding, the universe has no boundary, either in space or in time. A Greek philosopher asked what would happen if a person went to the edge of the universe and threw a spear at it. Would the spear bounce back off the edge of the universe or would it disappear when it crossed the boundary?

The same applies to the the universe being unbounded in time. If I understand Stephen Hawking's 'no boundary' hypothesis correctly, if one could go back in time nearly to the origin of the universe one would eventually find oneself travelling along a space dimension and then along a time dimension leading to the future. It is like heading slightly east or west of north and missing the north pole by a few kilometres. At your nearest point to the pole you would travel due east or due west, and later you would be travelling slightly east or west of south.

That is true. According to the doctors I have less than a year to live; I would prefer it to be less than a month. We are in much the same position; you will probably never figure out where your God came from, and I suspect that the universe is self-existent and without a boundary in either space or time.

As far as Tiktaalik goes, I only know what has been presented as a form not sure if it was a fossil that had a large head and maybe 4 feet. If I remember correctly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As far as Tiktaalik goes, I only know what has been presented as a form not sure if it was a fossil that had a large head and maybe 4 feet. If I remember correctly.

People have explained to you ad nauseum the significance of this fossil and how it was found by prediction using evolution theory.

Anyhow... my questions... when?

On Evolution & Creation

If one studies human evolution, which is my area of specialization [physical anthropology], one can VERY clearly see where in general human apes appear to come from around 6-7 million years ago. Even 3-4 million years ago, an Australopithecus walking down the street would certainly get...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[YoursTrue]

It's in the link that was included and reposted several times now.
Here, I'll copy paste for your convenience:

@YoursTrue Friendly reminder to answer these 2 simple questions about the statement "finches remain finches"

1. does the statement support or contradict evolution theory?
2a. if it supports the theory, why does it support it?
2b. if it contradicts the theory, why does it contradict it?

I doubt the time table given about the fish said to be Tiktaalik; I also can see how scientists will fit it in with what is deemed to be evidence bolstering the theory. You may think evolution is no longer a theory. Hope that helps to answer your questions. In other words, I hope to be more explicit, I do not believe the theory is true as purported by many scientists, therefore the fossil called Tiktaalik is not evidence insofar as I am concerned supporting the theory. The fossil called Tiktaalik is evidence that the organism was alive at some point in time. However, since I do not believe the theory of evolution is true -- whatever someone wants to call evidence is up to those doing such. Since I do not believe the theory as taught by evolutionists is true I do not cast my vote about the Tiktaalik. If I believed in the theory no doubt I would think it was evidence supporting the theory. Hope that helps to explain my position.

 

[YoursTrue]

People have explained to you ad nauseum the significance of this fossil and how it was found by prediction using evolution theory.

Anyhow... my questions... when?

On Evolution & Creation

If one studies human evolution, which is my area of specialization [physical anthropology], one can VERY clearly see where in general human apes appear to come from around 6-7 million years ago. Even 3-4 million years ago, an Australopithecus walking down the street would certainly get...

www.religiousforums.com

The fossil was "found by prediction"? Either way, whether it was or wasn't, again -- since I do not believe the theory of evolution as promoted by Darwin and subsequent scientists is true any longer, I can see how scientists will believe the fossil represents a change toward land rovers. I see it shows there was a fish with a large head and what seems to look like 4 legs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fossil was "found by prediction"?

Yes, as has been explained to you a bazillion times.

Either way, whether it was or wasn't, again -- since I do not believe the theory of evolution as promoted by Darwin and subsequent scientists is true any longer, I can see how scientists will believe the fossil represents a change toward land rovers. I see it shows there was a fish with a large head and what seems to look like 4 legs.

So you don't think it is significant when scientists take evolution theory and state:
"If evolution theory is correct, then we should be able to find a species that shows such and such specific anatomical features from fish as well as such and such specific anatomical features from land crawlers, which would have lived in shallow waters near a shoreline some 350 million years ago as sealife was gradually evolving into land life"

And then they consult geographers to find out where rocks of that age of such ancient environments are currently exposed, go there, start digging and actually find a fossil of that exact age showing those exact features?

If evolution is wrong, how come it can be so incredibly accurately used to make such predictions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I doubt the time table given about the fish said to be Tiktaalik;

It's not a fish. It's literally a cross between a fish and a tetrapod. You know... a transitional.

I also can see how scientists will fit it in with what is deemed to be evidence bolstering the theory. You may think evolution is no longer a theory. Hope that helps to answer your questions. In other words, I hope to be more explicit, I do not believe the theory is true as purported by many scientists, therefore the fossil called Tiktaalik is not evidence insofar as I am concerned supporting the theory. The fossil called Tiktaalik is evidence that the organism was alive at some point in time. However, since I do not believe the theory of evolution is true -- whatever someone wants to call evidence is up to those doing such. Since I do not believe the theory as taught by evolutionists is true I do not cast my vote about the Tiktaalik. If I believed in the theory no doubt I would think it was evidence supporting the theory. Hope that helps to explain my position.

You didn't answer the questions in the post you are responding to. My questions were not at all about Tiktaalik or any time tables etc.

Why do you refuse to answer the questions?

I've asked 6 times now. What's the problem?

 

[icant]

Good for a chuckle but does nothing to define kind. Is my kind of flesh different than yours?

Hi Pogo,

You did ask for what kinds means in the scriptures did you or did you not?

That is what I gave you. You may not like it but that is the only answer there is.

If you are a modern man/woman we are the same kind.

If you are an animal, we are not the same kind.

If you are a fish we are not the same kind.

If you are a fowl we are not the same kind.

Now if you don't like the answer be careful of questions you ask.

What is the difference between kinds. and so on?

I could tell you a few experiments you could run to test it out.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

I've asked 6 times now. What's the problem?

What's the problem he told he didn't believe in evolution?
I don't believe in it either.

When a scientist can take a pigs tooth and make a transitional. out of it You will have a hard time convincing me that science is anywhere near correct on anything. They can lie just like a bunch of preachers I know.

Enjoy

 

[Argentbear]

I doubt the time table given about the fish said to be Tiktaalik; I also can see how scientists will fit it in with what is deemed to be evidence bolstering the theory. You may think evolution is no longer a theory. Hope that helps to answer your questions. In other words, I hope to be more explicit, I do not believe the theory is true as purported by many scientists, therefore the fossil called Tiktaalik is not evidence insofar as I am concerned supporting the theory. The fossil called Tiktaalik is evidence that the organism was alive at some point in time. However, since I do not believe the theory of evolution is true -- whatever someone wants to call evidence is up to those doing such. Since I do not believe the theory as taught by evolutionists is true I do not cast my vote about the Tiktaalik. If I believed in the theory no doubt I would think it was evidence supporting the theory. Hope that helps to explain my position.

Why do you ask for explanations and evidence if you are not going to honestly look at he responses people provide?

 

[wellwisher]

Essentially yes. Not necessarily a mutation, but any source of variation provides a platform for evolution.

An arctic wolf has pups. Some are white, some black; some thick furred, some not.
The white, thick furred pups thrive, live long and have many babies. Their color and fur is passed on to most of their offspring. The traits increase in the population over succeeding generations.
The shorter haired, darker pups are shorter-lived and less reproductively successful. The traits just don't "fit" the snowy, arctic environment as well as their lighter, warmer siblings. The percentage of short-haired, dark wolves in the population gradually decreases.
That's natural selection in a nutshell. No planning. No design. No conscious manipulation needed. Gradual, unguided change happens.

Say we add migration to this scenario. The mom and all her pups move south for the winter, and come back north in the summer. The following year, some after migrate south and other stay north. Both decide to stay where the weather better suits their clothes. Now all stay one step ahead of natural selection; brain. Assessing one own survivability, can cause one to make selective changes.

Humans migrated since they first appeared on the scene, with some stopping in many different places all over the world. They learned to alter the environment so they can have more control over natural selection.

Today, human selection has replaced natural selection for many things like animal and plant breeding. Weeds are a product of natural selection yet we pull them out so the weaker, but prettier flowers and veggies can do better.

When Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands what he saw was a place that had stopped in time. What was there, was like a final selection without much in the way of competition or change. It was like steady state was reached. This gave Darwin the sense of evolution being a long slow process and not an immediate change like in the Bible.

Darwin could not fully see this slow steady state in his native England, since that place had been so developed by humans, for so long, and with Commerce and the British world empire, it was now full of imported plants and animals with a higher rate of flux and no real steady state. This is why theories like spontaneous generation caught on. Galapagos gave a different picture.

 

[Argentbear]

Hi Pogo,

You did ask for what kinds means in the scriptures did you or did you not?

That is what I gave you. You may not like it but that is the only answer there is.

If you are a modern man/woman we are the same kind.

If you are an animal, we are not the same kind.

If you are a fish we are not the same kind.

If you are a fowl we are not the same kind.

Now if you don't like the answer be careful of questions you ask.


I could tell you a few experiments you could run to test it out.

Enjoy,

The answer you gave was basically "I have no idea"

 

[Argentbear]

Say we add migration to this scenario. The mom and all her pups move south for the winter, and come back north in the summer. The following year, some after migrate south and other stay north. Both decide to stay where the weather better suits their clothes. Now all stay one step ahead of natural selection; brain. Assessing one own survivability, can cause one to make selective changes.

Artic wolves don't migrate.

Humans migrated since they first appeared on the scene, with some stopping in many different places all over the world. They learned to alter the environment so they can have more control over natural selection.

How?

Today, human selection has replaced natural selection for many things like animal and plant breeding. Weeds are a product of natural selection yet we pull them out so the weaker, but prettier flowers and veggies can do better.

Actually pulling weeds would encourage stronger root systems leading to more robust weeds better able to survive

When Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands what he saw was a place that had stopped in time. What was there, was like a final selection without much in the way of competition or change. It was like steady state was reached. This gave Darwin the sense of evolution being a long slow process and not an immediate change like in the Bible.

Stopped in time? not much competition? That is a whole lot of garbage

Darwin could not fully see this slow steady state in his native England, since that place had been so developed by humans, for so long, and with Commerce and the British world empire, it was now full of imported plants and animals with a higher rate of flux and no real steady state. This is why theories like spontaneous generation caught on. Galapagos gave a different picture.

Spontaneous generation was the idea that fully formed animals would just magically spring into existence. Mice were thought to just appear out of discarded rags and maggots just appeared in rotting meat. No one gave the idea much credit and if you tried to tell the average person how dark corners just let mice happen...poof... they would laugh in your face

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bacteria can change quickly, but do not evolve into a new species, that is not also a bacteria. The main problem with the bacteria mode of evolution, for higher forms of life, is bacteria make too many changes in terms of a family of siblings. Multicellular creatures would self destruct, if all their cells, down to each organ mutated, throughout their entire development, as fast as bacteria do. Picture every brain cell of the fetus, being slightly different at the genetic level, before they even add branches. The heart and liver would be a mishmash .

What had to happen for the advancement from single to multicellular, was the mutation rates had to be better controlled each cell cycle. Today we have proofreader enzymes to correct these defects. The proofreaders would not benefit bacteria, unless there was a cause and effect mechanism for their need to change.

With bacteria, since each is it own entity, they can mutate quickly, side-by-side, so at least some extended family member can survive or become optimized to any situation. From there a new colony can grow. But higher animals can't just partition all their organs into a dozens of mutant sub-organs parts until one aspect works better and then take over the organ, Evolution itself had to evolve; step up, with better quality control.

With multicellular differentiation, all the different cells use the exact same DNA; like a single mother bacteria. But there is much higher quality control over future of the DNA, with each differentiated cell, using just part of the same DNA. This is done by dialing in the configurational potential. The DNA of the daughter cells starts as condensed chromosomes. Based on how this is unpacked, will define which genes will be used, and therefore which cellular differentiation.

The DNA packing protein are oily or contain long organic side groups; histones (lysine and arginine). The zigzag lines are the oily.

Protein rich in these amino acids create surface tension in water. This surface tension can be lowered by being shielded by the DNA. The DNA will wrap around and help shield the water, from the histone's water and oil effect. As we unpack the DNA, this exposes these protein, again and will increase the surface tension of water, unless we can dispose of the packing proteins; send them to recycle. If we recycle these protein, the unpacked DNA is now at even lower potential, by losing that oily core. There is a difference in water potential between packed and unpacked DNA. As we unpack the DNA and dispose of the packing protein, more of the DNA configuration favors the water side and less the oil side.

One aspect of the DNA always stays packed, except when the DNA is duplicated; centromere. The centromere region is like the icy oily pole of the DNA's configurational gradient; frozen/packed solid. The most unpacked aspects of the DNA are the warmer pole. Based on the ratio, we can tune in any differentiated cell types. Often the last packing protein exposed are not recycled, but remain nearby, to repack the DNA, and adjust the configurational potential to its differentiated sweet spot.

In terms of maintaining the cellular differentiation control, in the human body, so all the organs stay steady, is the gradient created between the blood supply and nervous system found near most of the cells. The blood is the oil side and the nerves represent the water side. The brain also has a blood-brain barrier, which separates the brain, to some extend from the oily side.

Addressing your first paragraph, individuals and groups of individual Eukaryotes do not evolve within and during the course of their lives. It is difficult to tell what changes you refer to here. Are you talking about developmental and physiological changes that are the result of existing genes rather than the results of mutations?

I agree that radical changes in genes of an individual eukaryotes somatic cells and the resultant phenotypes would be destructive. It is generally referred to under the broad umbrella name of cancer.

Multi-cellular organisms do not normally mutate throughout their development and any changes that would relate to this appear to be facilitated by existing genetics and is not evolution. But Prokaryotes due to their single-celled existence and the ability of some to exchange genes horizontally, can change rapidly and daughter cell populations can evolve from the results of this transfer. You are correct in that sense regarding higher rates of evolution in Prokaryotes. This is one means by which rapid development of antibiotic resistance occurs. But prokaryotes are subject to the same chances in mutation that eukaryotes are. A mutation is more likely to be neutral or detrimental than beneficial and some changes can be lethal. Prokaryotes just have higher numbers to work with.

People take advantage of the flexibility of bacterial traits and we can transform them by inserting foreign DNA into their genomes. That isn't something that would be possible with most, perhaps all Eukaryota. Too much complexity to overcome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Say we add migration to this scenario. The mom and all her pups move south for the winter, and come back north in the summer. The following year, some after migrate south and other stay north. Both decide to stay where the weather better suits their clothes. Now all stay one step ahead of natural selection; brain. Assessing one own survivability, can cause one to make selective changes.

Humans migrated since they first appeared on the scene, with some stopping in many different places all over the world. They learned to alter the environment so they can have more control over natural selection.

Today, human selection has replaced natural selection for many things like animal and plant breeding. Weeds are a product of natural selection yet we pull them out so the weaker, but prettier flowers and veggies can do better.

When Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands what he saw was a place that had stopped in time. What was there, was like a final selection without much in the way of competition or change. It was like steady state was reached. This gave Darwin the sense of evolution being a long slow process and not an immediate change like in the Bible.

Darwin could not fully see this slow steady state in his native England, since that place had been so developed by humans, for so long, and with Commerce and the British world empire, it was now full of imported plants and animals with a higher rate of flux and no real steady state. This is why theories like spontaneous generation caught on. Galapagos gave a different picture.

There is no evidence that selection is a willful choice. Even as mammals with the mammalian brain, I wouldn't expect wolves to be able to conceive and guide their own evolution. Only humans have tried and that has been based on human perception in defiance of the environment. Modern humans have found ways to alter the environment to make it more suitable for humans. In doing so, we seem to have altered it in ways that we don't care for. Not very intelligent designing.

In the Galapagos Islands Darwin found a place isolated from the mainland where animals proceeded in their evolution without the normal gene flow from the mainland and took this evolution in different directions under the selection of the particular environment. Declaring it frozen in time would not be an appropriate descriptor for what he found.

Radical changes in the environment would drive both extinction and evolution. The importation and propagation of foreign plants would change the environment and quite possibly in rather rapid ways that one can observe. In animals, there is the evolution of the peppered moth populations that is a prime example of adaptive evolution and right there in England.

I don't know of any evolution being described in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you ask for explanations and evidence if you are not going to honestly look at he responses people provide?

I look at as much as I can. I may avoid reading posts of those who are pejorative or nasty and I do not have time to read every post. If a post is very long I tend to skip it.