The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Gunfingers]

The Cyanobacteria you refer to is not "known about", there is no way of proving it is as old as claimed. Why don't you quote something conclusive form that article. And quote how they survived the UV.

I'm not sure which dating methods were used, probably several. You can read a little about it here, but there are dozens of articles about the various dating methods and their accuracy available on the internets.
How early life survived is an area of ongoing research, and there are several hypotheses. Since the nature of the early atmosphere is uncertain (including the degree to which UV radiation was able to penetrate) it's impossible at this point to say which is accurate. A near as I can tell the best guess is that early life was able to survive because it mostly occurred in fairly deep water. But, since I know you're going to accuse me of passing off hypotheses are facts, these are hypotheses. They are explanations which have not been confirmed.

So are you saying that the word "Microspeciation" is not used? I am saying that the ones presenting the information need to be more honest about what is MAcro and Micro.

Microspeciation of polypeptides - The Journal of Physical Chemistry (ACS Publications)

If I say something and then later Painted Wolf says something different, ignore me and listen to her. This is her area of expertise, and I am very much a layman. I was wrong earlier to say that "microevolution" is not a term used by scientists, just as you were wrong in your understanding of its use.

And as I've shown , Fruit fly speciation is in the MICRO category.

Why?

As it stands, only MICROevolution has ever been observed, Macro-evolution has not been observed.

How do you know? Where is the cutoff? What's your definition of macroevolution?

Does science normally involve pushing a theory as fact without evidence? If so, that says a lot.

Theories aren't facts, they're explanations of facts. Facts, such as the appearance of nested hierarchies in life, are explained by evolutionary theory. Since nothing else can explain this fact, or any of dozens of others, evolutionary theory is the accepted theory for the diversity of life.

If you think the odds of everything falling perfectly into the Goldilocks zone is "pretty damned good", you're welcome to believe that.

Then I shall! If you can provide contrary evidence I'm all ears. Or eyes, I guess, since we're communicating over a visual medium.

 

[Shermana]

How exactly was I wrong in the use of either the terms Micro or Macro evolution and Micro and Macro Speciation? As for Fruit Flies, see the quote from the article earlier.

 

[painted wolf]

Microspeciation is a chemistry term for a change in molecules. ie. Polypeptides.

Unless you are suggesting that polypeptides are living things, you have chosen an irrelevant term.

Microspeciation is not a biological term.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

Artemia biology - Google Books

This suggests that rapid evolution can occur in an obligately asexual Artemia population leading to diverse microspeciation.

http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0954102001000360

 

[tumbleweed41]

Artemia biology - Google Books

This suggests that rapid evolution can occur in an obligately asexual Anemia population leading to diverse microspeciation.

I'm sure you meant to type Artemia, and are not referring to anemic brine shrimp.

 

[McBell]

My bad, I thought that showing the legitimate arguments against Macro-Evolution and how Macroevolutionists do exactly what the OP is accusing Creationists of (except against the Bible) had something to do with the OP.

And here I am, STILL waiting for these "legitimate" arguments against Speciation.
Or perhaps you are merely continuing your attack on your strawmaned version of 'macro-evolution'?

 

[painted wolf]

Artemia biology - Google Books
http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...60a.pdf&code=6afe4fcbc0242e15a239898b8d35813a

Wow... I've never heard the term in all the papers I've ever read, classes I've ever taken and so on. This is the only instance I've ever seen it. I can't find a definition in any scientific resource.

But kuodo's on finding a singe case where it's used.

wa:do

btw, your second link is not functional

 

[Shermana]

I'm sure you meant to type Artemia, and are not referring to anemic brine shrimp.

Fixed. Yes that could have been misconstrued.

btw, your second link is not functional

And fixed.

Wow... I've never heard the term in all the papers I've ever read, classes I've ever taken and so on. This is the only instance I've ever seen it. I can't find a definition in any scientific resource.

But kuodo's on finding a singe case where it's used.

http://eureka.ya.com/fundacionhn/Investigacion/Congreso/Dna.htm

The studies here described consider several aspects of the pericentromeric satellite-DNA (sat-DNA) biology in the genus Mus and discuss how sat-DNA organization/composition may influence karyotype structure which in turn can affect developmental and microspeciation processes. The intra-genus comparative analysis of pericentromeric DNAs shows that only in Mus domesticus one (the major) of the two (the major and the minor) sat-DNA families allocated at the pericentromere is highly amplified with a long-range organization of the cluster repeats. This peculiar feature of major sat-DNA correlates with the proneness of domesticus telocentric chromosomes to give rise to whole arm (Robertsonian, Rb) translocations. In the pericentromeric regions of Rb chromosomes there are no telomeric sequences and only 20-60 kb of minor sat-DNA organising a functionally active kinetochore. The fusion point is constantly localised within the minor sat-DNA which, when analysed with FIBER-FISH, shows low intermingling of the tandem repeats with the major sat-DNA. Rb heterozygosity produces alteration of the nuclear architecture as shown by whole chromosome painting in germ and Sertoli cells of fertile and chromosomally-derived subfertile/sterile animals. Thus, the mouse represents an excellent model animal to study the relationships between the various hyerarchycal levels of life organisation, i.e. from molecular to cytodifferentiation and from development to speciation. In the mouse, the cascade of effects linking sat-DNA composition, chromosome translocations, cytodifferentiative and developmental processes and microspeciation events, provides the conceptual and experimental tools to further our understanding on the link between the molecular and organismic worlds. The integration of these conceptual tools within functional genomics and within an EVO-DEVO perspective will highlight those functional aspects of the genome organisation (i.e. its size and composition) useful to solve present-day paradoxes, e.g., C-values, number of structural genes and heterochromatin biology.

http://master-dynea.univ-pau.fr/live/Equipe+pedagogique/CM?isPdf=1

Since 1988, I develop works on population dynamic and genome evolution of threatened aquatic populations, taking marine birds and river birds as models. My current researchs include:
1. Long term environmental and population changes in the Bay of Biscay: spatio-temporal evolution of seabirds and cetaceans since 1976 (Hémery et al. 2008, Global Change Biology), impacts of global change, chronic pollutions and oil spills on genetic diversity of birds.
2. Phylogeographic differentiation of the pelagic storm-petrels Hydrobates pelagicus in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea: gene flows and genetic drive between/inside colonies, barriers to gene flow, micro-speciation in small populations, cryptic species, management units (Cagnon et al. 2004, Marine Biology).
3. Worldwide phylogeography and population polymorphism of river passerines Cinclus spp.: historical and contemporary gene flows, post-glacial colonisations, impacts of stresses on genomes (Lauga et al. 2005, J Ornithology).

 

[outhouse]

The Cyanobacteria you refer to is not "known about", there is no way of proving it is as old as claimed. Why don't you quote something conclusive form that article. And quote how they survived the UV.

So are you saying that the word "Microspeciation" is not used? I am saying that the ones presenting the information need to be more honest about what is MAcro and Micro.

Microspeciation of polypeptides - The Journal of Physical Chemistry (ACS Publications)

And as I've shown , Fruit fly speciation is in the MICRO category.

As it stands, only MICROevolution has ever been observed, Macro-evolution has not been observed.

Does science normally involve pushing a theory as fact without evidence? If so, that says a lot.

If you think the odds of everything falling perfectly into the Goldilocks zone is "pretty damned good", you're welcome to believe that. The odds of Shakespeare-typing Monkeys is probably higher.

only you claim UV lol

your lost


the fossils it left behind are easily debatable


maybe you believe in a earth not 6000 years old??? no wait we already know you are not YEC.

 

[Amill]

No Outhouse that is not so at all. Their models are no more based on an assumption than evolutionary models are. If you are going to alledge that their models are fantasy you need to refute them scientifically. When you do this you will also be facing off one assumption against another.

We'd have to see a model first. And it would need to be refutable. "God created everything, the end" really isn't specific enough.

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks for the additional uses... but I'm still unable to find a biological definition.

The one on mice can still be using it as chemistr6y terminology.

wa:do

 

[David M]

As I said earlier, it's like needing to go 88mph to go back to the future when the max speed is 5. If you can only go 5, then any major changes like lungs and legs and wings cannot happen. And you are ignoring the major fact that radical changes cause drastic drawbacks in other locations. If your car can go 120mph, but the tires blow out after 10 seconds of cruising, you ain't going much farther than down the street.

And here is the primary error that arises from your ignorance of evolution, Evolution does not need to go at 88mph to produce a major morphologic change such as that which separates dogs and lions, it needs to go 88 miles which it can do at 5mph, it just takes time (i.e. many generations).

The fact that nothing can exist without an Ozone layer already in place first (not even Cyanobacteria) kinda proves the order of Creation correct ("plants" first, unless you can prove how Cyanobacteria survived the initial UV).

Except in the oceans, because UV does not penetrate that far through water. And all the fossil evidence shows that life started in the oceans. Of course the fact that the sun was not as bright back then would have meant lower UV levels as well.

 

[outhouse]

And all the fossil evidence shows that life started in the oceans

Ah yes

A little tidbit that will be ignored because it only can point to evolution

 

[Shermana]

And here is the primary error that arises from your ignorance of evolution, Evolution does not need to go at 88mph to produce a major morphologic change such as that which separates dogs and lions, it needs to go 88 miles which it can do at 5mph, it just takes time (i.e. many generations).



Except in the oceans, because UV does not penetrate that far through water. And all the fossil evidence shows that life started in the oceans. Of course the fact that the sun was not as bright back then would have meant lower UV levels as well.

cyanobacteria

Although stromatolites are somewhat UV-resistant, it is likely that they tended to grow just under the surface of the water to gain some additional protection. For colonies exposed to direct sunlight, a top level of bacteria killed by the UV light may have served to protect lower-lying layers.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/131/m131p257.pdf UV penetration of water is much stronger than you think.

You can ignore the very reason why I mention that it needs to go 88mph to achieve certain results like fins and lungs and legs if you like.

 

[outhouse]

cyanobacteria
http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/131/m131p257.pdf UV penetration of water is much stronger than you think.

You can ignore the very reason why I mention that it needs to go 88mph to achieve certain results like fins and lungs and legs if you like.

why do you bring up cyano?, you dont know the first thing about it to even use it as a example of anything.

you dont know anything about evolution

finding gaps in species does not discount the theory




I guess thats what you have to do when one is so desperate due to lack of education in the subject

 

[McBell]

Please see post #109

 

[camanintx]

DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution

This Poisson approximation shows that out of 10,000 offspring, only 2,202 of them would have the same or less than the original number of detrimental mutations of the parent population. This leaves 7,798 with more detrimental mutations than the parent population.51 Of course, in order to maintain a steady state population of 5,000, natural selection must cull out 5,000 of these 10,000 offspring before they are able to reproduce. Given a preference, those with more detrimental mutations will be less fit by a certain degree and will be removed from the population before those that are more fit (less detrimental mutations). Given strong selection pressure, the second generation might be made up of ~2,200 more fit individuals and only ~2,800 less fit individuals with the overall average showing a decline as compared with the original parent generation. If selection pressure is strong, so that the majority of those with more than 7 detrimental mutations are removed from the population, the next generation will only have about 1,100 mating couples as compared to 2,500 in the original generation. With a reproductive rate of 4 per couple, only 4,400 offspring will be produced as compared to 10,000 originally. In order to keep up with this loss, the reproductive rate must be increased or the population will head toward extinction. In fact, given a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 3 in a sexually reproducing population, the average number of offspring needed to keep up would be around 20 per breeding couple (2eUd/2). While this is about half that required for an asexual population (2eUd), it is still quite significant.​

​

Considering each individual human has approximately 120 mutations in their DNA and yet populations continue to grow exponentially despite fertility rates well below 4 per couple, don't you think that Dr. Pitman's assumptions about the frequency of deleterious mutations may be just a little off?

 

[idav]

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/131/m131p257.pdf UV penetration of water is much stronger than you think.

Point?

You can ignore the very reason why I mention that it needs to go 88mph to achieve certain results like fins and lungs and legs if you like.

There is no issue with this analogy unless your a young earth creationist. Are you a YEC?

I already showed you that fins and hands are too similar to just say they can't morph over time. We have good ideas on how the gills and lungs came about to. Just takes time, lungs don't just pop up after a couple generations.

 

[painted wolf]

Many modern species of Archaea and Bacteria are able to survive high levels of UV... extremeophiles are pretty amazing critters.

Additionally many other Bacteria are able to produce endospores that can protect them from high UV until conditions improve.

Even modern cyanobacteria have ways to protect themselves from higher than normal UV.
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

Many modern species of Archaea and Bacteria are able to survive high levels of UV... extremeophiles are pretty amazing critters.

Additionally many other Bacteria are able to produce endospores that can protect them from high UV until conditions improve.

Even modern cyanobacteria have ways to protect themselves from higher than normal UV.
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

wa:do

From what I understand, even at a dimmer Sun, the UV without an Ozone would be, depending on location, 2-10 times higher than current. Which of these extremophiles can produce the O2 necessary for the Ozone layer to form in the first place?

In order for it to be proven that Stromatolites existed before the Ozone layer, there'd have to be a way to calculate their ability to withstand the particular UV levels they endured pre-Ozone.

Until then, the Ozone layer had to have come first.