DNA (to name just one) provides excellent support for the theory of evolution.
DNA only shows similarity in relationships but has not been proven to be linked in a lineage type fashion nor is there a mechanism that can support large changes such as pakicetids becoming a whale. It is still very much a hypothesis. The proof that is being imposed on the evidence is noting that a few things were tweaked here and there. However, there is no mechanism that can make these kinds of changes. No matter how much Steven and I went back and forth on this, he never produced an absolute example of such a thing or a reasonable explanation for the way things unfolded in the fossil record. There is no gradualism, which is why Stephen J. Gould came up with the term punctuated equilibrium. In addition, there are hundreds of examples where evolution supposedly repeats itself under totally different conditions. This was not supposed to happen. And last but not least, extinction is the norm, not creativity. 99% of all animals that have ever lived are extinct.
What RTB proposes is that God, being a good Engineer, reuses good designs. If, for example, ERVs work in the genome, then why not give it to other similar creatures that would need to fight off viruses. These were not implanted by viruses but were given by God to allow man and other mammals to fight off infection because they break the cycle within the virus.
To me, the atheist/evolutionists (definitely not all scientists) are like listening to a twisted lawyer present his case purposely leaving out details to support the conclusion and the whole of the courtroom believing it because they are sold out on the eloquent speech. In this case, it is because man likes to sin and he likes the idea that the Bible might not be true and God might not be real so that he can continue in his sin without eternal consequence. What a shocker to meet God face to face on the day of judgment.
Vera
Posts
16 comments:
Verdicts in court cases are not determined by what the lawyers say, V.
Verdicts are determined on the basis of (and here's that word again) the evidence.
I don't know who told you that DNA isn't capable of making evolution happen. Whoever it was, they lied to you.
Never heard of fossil DNA? Look it up.
---------------
"...God, being a good engineer, reuses good designs...."
*facepalm*
No good engineer would also produce crummy designs. Humans have too many teeth in our narrow jaws; our knees weren't built to keep us going for eighty years; and our sinuses don't drain properly - among other things. Another example: the kangaroo. No engineer would admit to designing that, because there are better ways to build grazing animals that live in hot dry places. We know because we've seen 'em.
Engineers build things that work correctly; evolution produces things that work well enough to survive. There's a difference.
Say, Vera, have you heard?
Gay marriage causes mass murder.
No foolin'. Here's the story:
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html
You're an evolution denier, Vera. Just like nearly all other Bible-banging fundies, you insist that all those biologists--you know, the people with "Ph.D" after their name who actually went to school so they could know what they're talking about--are all lying, and that people like Christian televangelists, Christian ministers, Christian lawyers, Christian plumbers, Christian mailmen and Christian street preachers all understand the basics of science and esp. biology better than the actual experts do.
For instance: your insistence that ERVs aren't viral in origin just because they have some function. Why, then, do they call them endogenous retroviruses?We as a society have to decide just how wise it is to let the most bigoted and ignorant in our society--Christian fundamentalists--set medical, social and educational policy for everybody else.
Weemaryanne
I found this one article on what I think it is you are referring to. Look at the dates. 125 million years is not in the neighborhood of 3.8 billion years. DNA is not that easy to pick out of a fossil which is why they don't know conclusively what the DNA of the dinosaurs was. Even the one t-rex bone that they found that they thought might contain collagen is now a controversy as to whether it was contaminated by microbes.
http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm
When they have studied geologic samples that date back that far, they have discovered that life springs forth the minute it is able to. Plus, microbes are found in the clouds as well. It is believed that the clouds could not exist in part without these microbes.
The microbes are not simple but complex as has been demonstrated.
Secondly, although scientists have been able to created self-replicating RNA in the lab, they have also proven the absolute necessity for the intelligence they provided to make this happen.
Thirdly, there is no remnants of a primordial soup in the geologic record.
This is the way things were for many billions of years until the planet had a nice ozone layer and could support life on the land without getting fried by the radiation from the sun.
Engineers build things that work correctly; evolution produces things that work well enough to survive. There's a difference.Death was part of the design of this planet. Why?
Revelations 13:8 says this, And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.The reason was so that Jesus would be slain for the sins of the world and to destroy the works of the devil, once for all. Death and decay were a part of the plan right from the beginning and the whole of creation was subjected to it for the sake of the victory that Jesus would bring through His death, burial and resurrection.
There is nothing wrong with the kangaroo. That is your opinion. There are many unusual animals. The part you are missing is that the kangaroo is designed to demonstrate an attribute of God.
Engineers build things that work correctly; evolution produces things that work well enough to survive. There's a differenceAs I said, He says that death and entropy were part of His design. My body works correctly but I am also in a sin filled world. Most people I know have bodies that work correctly. Death was passed onto me because of Adam's sin so that my body would experience death as well. Hence, I have experienced the aging process since the day I was born. But God so loved me, that He gave His Son for me so that I could live with Him in eternity in heaven where entropy will never effect me again. God experienced death on this planet too. He didn't put on us what He wasn't willing to go through Himself. I guarantee you that His death was worse than anything you will ever experience. That is what He did for you to make a way for you after you go through death. There is no escaping the fact that you will experience that death one day as will I.
Vera
CH
You're an evolution denier, Vera. Just like nearly all other Bible-banging fundies, you insist that all those biologists--you know, the people with "Ph.D" after their name who actually went to school so they could know what they're talking about--are all lying, and that people like Christian televangelists, Christian ministers, Christian lawyers, Christian plumbers, Christian mailmen and Christian street preachers all understand the basics of science and esp. biology better than the actual experts do.I most certainly am not. :-) I believe in reality. I am confident that reality and the testing of it will be in complete harmony with the Bible and it is. I can see that there are microevolutionary changes that occurred within species due to climate and environmental changes and a progression of species that went from a water to land to air just as Genesis 1 describes. Then they were destroyed and life came back in another radiation event fairly quickly so that mammals could exist along side of man. No dinosaur is found above the KT boundary which fits day #5 going into day #6 and Psalm 104:29-31 which describes this.
Where we part company is in the beginning of each of these species. Your model would suggest that they came about strictly through natural processes, which is absurd since the same microevoluionary processes cannot be imposed on these radiation events such as the Cambrian explosion. The organs alone are a huge problem for that model. There are so many design features in our bodies that when they malfunction, it is a mess. The pancreas and insulin are a good example. The pituitary gland is another that is regulating the fluids in our bodies. For your model to work, there would have to be many incremental adjustments within the animal. Fortunately, that is not what the fossil record shows. It shows these bursts of creation such as the Cambrian explosion and then stasis where there are millions of years with no change whatsoever.
Each animal ever found in the fossil record was perfectly suited to its habitat and environment including Tiktaalik. It is speculation that Tiktaalik is the missing link. There is no proof of this whatsoever. Plus, Tiktaalik's predecessor had digits where Tiktaalik didn't. The fact that we can't ascertain the DNA of these creatures is another problem. I am fairly confident that they will never be able to know these things for a fact but will continue to proclaim them as fact. Reality suggests that this is an animal that lived by the water's edge.... period. That is reality. That is all we see and KNOW. The rest is hypothesis. So many people base their whole eternity on the speculations of science. It is a travesty!
For instance: your insistence that ERVs aren't viral in origin just because they have some function. Why, then, do they call them endogenous retroviruses?We as a society have to decide just how wise it is to let the most bigoted and ignorant in our society--Christian fundamentalists--set medical, social and educational policy for everybody else.If it were a virus, it would create problems just like viruses do. Instead, it has a purpose to destroy viruses. That is a function and a purpose. The first scientists that saw these ERVs assumed that it was a virus and junk that had been added in by accident. That was many moons ago. With further research and study, it has been demonstrated that these ERVs have a function. They are not junk. boo hoo.
Vera
Vera,
There is, of course, a mechanism available to alter DNA: it's called mutation. That you don't know what the word means doesn't show that the mechanism doesn't exist.
There are several types of mutations known: single-nucleotide substitutions (where a single base in the DNA chain is replaced with another one -- A becomes T, G, or C, etc.), insertions or deletions of bases, insertions or deletions of longer sequences of bases, translocations of entire strings of bases, or duplication or entire strings of bases.
A series of mutations of these kinds can change any genome into any other genome. Indeed, myriad such series of mutations can do so.
There are a few instances of gradual change captured in the fossil record: various sequences of single-celled forams, and of course Gould himself described a series of fossils showing gradual transformation of one species of the snail genus Cerion to another.
There are many more cases (Gould cited several in support of his thesis) where there are no transitions between species preserved as fossils, but where one species succeeds another, very similar species in the fossil record, and is followed by yet another very similar species, sometimes for dozens of species and several genera.
Since we know that speciation is possible -- it has been observed in plants, fruit flies, etc. -- the lack of fossil records of gradual speciation cannot be taken as evidence that speciation did not occur in these ancient lineages. And since the different species themselves form transitions between different genera, the fossil record does indeed support gradual change.
Since natural selection is not random, it is not unexpected that similar starting points, under similar selective pressures, will often produce similar outcomes (convergent or parallel evolution).
Re-use of good design raises an obvious question, though: why don't we see more of it? Pterosaurs, birds, and bats are all flying vertebrates, but they use three different ways of modifying tetrapod forelimbs into wings: this is not "re-use of good design." Neither are the differences between, say, the eyes of marine cephalopods (which don't have inverted retinas) and the inverted retinas of marine vertebrates.
Neither, of course, are the different ways in which the GULO pseudogene is disabled in primates and guinea pigs. All these differences are more consistent with the idea of separately evolved features and natural selection "re-inventing the wheel" multiple times.
The point about ERVs, of course, is that both their distribution and the differences among ERV sequences falls into the nested hierarchy predicted as a consequence of branching descent with modification. This is not explained by special creation, even if your bizarre ideas about ERVs fighting viruses had a shred of evidence to support it (and you've produced none).
Steven
the lack of fossil records of gradual speciation cannot be taken as evidence that speciation did not occur in these ancient lineages.The lack of evidence is the point. There is no mechanism that can support a theory that suggests that added nucleotides would produce perfect organs and systems to support life gradually naturalistically and nothing in evidence supports this. Absolutely positively nothing!
Re-use of good design raises an obvious question, though: why don't we see more of it? Pterosaurs, birds, and bats are all flying vertebrates, but they use three different ways of modifying tetrapod forelimbs into wings: this is not "re-use of good design." Neither are the differences between, say, the eyes of marine cephalopods (which don't have inverted retinas) and the inverted retinas of marine vertebrates.True but the bat is a mammal, not a bird. The wing structure would have to be different to produce flight. Amen?
Neither, of course, are the different ways in which the GULO pseudogene is disabled in primates and guinea pigs. All these differences are more consistent with the idea of separately evolved features and natural selection "re-inventing the wheel" multiple times. We don't know if the GULO gene was disabled in Adam and Eve, now do we? Vitamin C would be a healthy attribute to have in your system if you are one that will not taste death with so many microbes floating around. According to the story, they would have lived forever had they not sinned. At that point, we became like the animals who were dying. Something physically changed. God says that there were physical changes ie pain in childbirth and death. I find it so interesting that you consistently refer to this as "disabled" as though the switch were turned off.
The point about ERVs, of course, is that both their distribution and the differences among ERV sequences falls into the nested hierarchy predicted as a consequence of branching descent with modification. This is not explained by special creation, even if your bizarre ideas about ERVs fighting viruses had a shred of evidence to support it (and you've produced none). I gave you the one on the placental role. Here is the reference to ERVs
Jerzy Jurka, "Subfamily Structure and Evolution of the Human LI Family in Repetitive Sequences, " Journal of Molecular Evolution 29 597-608
Also,
Elena Allen et al., "High Concentrations of Long Interspersed Nuclear Element Sequence Distinguish Monoallelically Expressed Genes, " Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 1000 (1989):496-503
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
The lack of evidence is the point. There is no mechanism that can support a theory that suggests that added nucleotides would produce perfect organs and systems to support life gradually naturalistically and nothing in evidence supports this. Absolutely positively nothing!Vera, do genes, as they are now, "produce organs?" I'm assuming that for some value of "produce organs," your answer is "yes." Do differences in genes produce differences in organs? I assume, again, that you would say "yes." Are there animals that survive and function without organs, and others that function with more rudimentary forms of organs? You ought to say "yes," as there are such animals.
So you're arguing eitherthat while a sponge can survive without any specialized organs at all, and a jellyfish can survive without a distinct heart or brain or some other organs, and so forth, there is no possible pathway through which organs become gradually more complex and powerful, with each step along the way viable and beneficial in some plausible environment,
oryou're arguing that, for some reason, changes to the genome map so randomly to changes in the phenotype that even if a gradual series of changes to the phenotype is possible, this can't be accomplished by gradual changes to the genotype.
I don't see much hope for either line of argument. On the one hand, the existence of intermediate states in living and fossil organisms strongly suggests that step-by-step acquisition of complex organs is quite possible. On the other hand, there are so many possible ways to change one genome to another that it seems massively improbable that every single one of them should be unable to make the requisite modifications to the phenotype.
Note, again, the point of natural selection: it doesn't matter that detrimental changes are easier to make and more common than beneficial changes. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive, and the ones with harmful mutations simply end up in the large fraction of offspring that don't survive to pass on their genes. The much rarer organisms that have beneficial mutations are much more likely to leave descendants, so that a rare beneficial mutation can leave myriads upon myriads of copies in descendants.
True but the bat is a mammal, not a bird. The wing structure would have to be different to produce flight. Amen?Is your argument that God does not know how to grow feathers on a mammal? It seems a rather odd limitation for an omnipotent Being. This still leaves open the different wing structures of pterosaurs and bats (neither have feathers, or at least the feathers of pterosaurs were so strand-like as to be fur for all practical purposes), the question of horizontal flukes for whales vs. vertical flukes for ichthyosaurs and fish, etc. These things have explanations in terms of branching descent with modification, but not in terms of a Creator "re-using good design" (unless, perhaps, we assert that He decided some designs were bad and not worth re-using?).
We don't know if the GULO gene was disabled in Adam and Eve, now do we? Vitamin C would be a healthy attribute to have in your system if you are one that will not taste death with so many microbes floating around. According to the story, they would have lived forever had they not sinned. At that point, we became like the animals who were dying. Something physically changed. God says that there were physical changes ie pain in childbirth and death. I find it so interesting that you consistently refer to this as "disabled" as though the switch were turned off.The gene (or a promoter region associated with the gene) is altered so that the gene is not transcribed into protein. Let us assume that there actually were an Adam and Eve, and that they were separately created from the ancestral populations of great apes, lesser apes, and monkeys. Now, do you suppose that these other primates had, at creation, functional GULO genes and lost them at the Fall? Or did God choose to create all these separate primate kinds with identically-crippled GULO pseudogenes, and then, at the Fall, disable Adam's and Eve's GULO genes with a mutation that exactly mimicked the disabling features of ape genes?
There are several different ways to turn a gene into a pseudogene. There's no obvious reason for a Creator to use one version for all anthropoid primates (including humans created in His own image), and a different version for guinea pigs. One might suppose, indeed, that God would either disable all GULO genes (in species where He wanted them disabled) identically, or would use a distinct and unique method to disable the human ones (to distinguish humans from other animals). On the other hand, the pattern of similarities and differences among GULO pseudogenes exactly fits the expectations of common descent of humans and other mammals.
Note that there are small differences between one primate species' GULO pseudogene and anothers: these are presumably neutral mutations accumulated through random genetic drift. The human GULO pseudogene is more similar to that of a chimpanzee than either is to the gorilla version, and more similar to the gorilla version than either is to the orangutan version, etc. This makes no sense if we assume that gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and humans are separately created kinds accumulating changes independently and randomly; the pattern makes sense if we share a more recent common ancestor with chimps than with gorillas, and a more recent common ancestor with gorillas than with orangutans, and so forth.
Here is the reference to ERVs
Jerzy Jurka, "Subfamily Structure and Evolution of the Human LI Family in Repetitive Sequences, " Journal of Molecular Evolution 29 597-608
Also,
Elena Allen et al., "High Concentrations of Long Interspersed Nuclear Element Sequence Distinguish Monoallelically Expressed Genes, " Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 1000 (1989):496-503I do not see how these support your claims ... and suspect that you do not, either.
@Vera--
I responded to your April 14, 2009 5:49 AM comment. I saw it go up. It's gone now, and this is starting to happen frequently. They go up, then they disappear.
You sure you're not deleting comments?
CH
You sure you're not deleting comments? There may be something wrong with your computer because the post is right there. I can see it in the list. See if you can't go to the comments page and pull it up.
Vera
Steven
Vera, do genes, as they are now, "produce organs?" I'm assuming that for some value of "produce organs," your answer is "yes." Do differences in genes produce differences in organs? I assume, again, that you would say "yes." Are there animals that survive and function without organs, and others that function with more rudimentary forms of organs? You ought to say "yes," as there are such animals.
Yes to all
So you're arguing either that while a sponge can survive without any specialized organs at all, and a jellyfish can survive without a distinct heart or brain or some other organs, and so forth, there is no possible pathway through which organs become gradually more complex and powerful, with each step along the way viable and beneficial in some plausible environment,
I would argue that it is impossible for the jellyfish to begin to grow an eye for sight or a brain. It may adapt under certain conditions for its own survivability but it will continue to be a jellyfish. The same is true of the worm.
http://www.reasons.org/Evolvability-AGoodDesignPrinciple
oryou're arguing that, for some reason, changes to the genome map so randomly to changes in the phenotype that even if a gradual series of changes to the phenotype is possible, this can't be accomplished by gradual changes to the genotype.
It is impossible for these large scale changes to occur by themselves to create spleens, T-cells, corticosteroids, livers, pancreas, lungs, hearts, brains, the firing mechanism that makes these cells work, reproductive organs, skin, skeletons (exo or endo) and all the rest. The skeleton is producing blood that is circulating through the circulatory system that is connected to the lymphatic system and the gastrointestinal tract to supply energy to the host. Microorganisms are ingested but quickly annihilated by the acid in our stomachs that would burn the paint off your car. There are hormones regulating the fluid levels of our body and the electrolytes. The eyes, ears, nose, tongue and sensory nerves are all working at lightening speed to keep us aware of our environment and doing work on the inside involuntarily. There is the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems each preforming a job. These systems are connected and work with each other. They aren't separate. So the incremental changes are impossible to produce through cellular mutation when each depends on the other. Neonates are too fragile to survive that kind of thing when there are so many harsh environmental changes going on at the same time.
For example, for evolution to work, the first organism that has a heart must have a mechanism for producing blood such as the skeleton, some sort of brain to regulate the flow of blood, and a means to oxygenate that blood. The brain has to regulate fluid level, otherwise the animal will die from hypovolemia or isotonic overhydration. In addition, the organism must have the means to saturate that blood with a food source that is broken down into microscopic sizes so that it can be transported to every tissue in the host's body. The animal then must reproduce these features with a viable female to keep these things going. At some point, there must be a first one and for the millions of generations of bacteria that scientists have observed, not one of them has even become a two celled animal.
On the other hand, there are so many possible ways to change one genome to another that it seems massively improbable that every single one of them should be unable to make the requisite modifications to the phenotype.
I agree.
Note, again, the point of natural selection: it doesn't matter that detrimental changes are easier to make and more common than beneficial changes. Organisms produce more offspring than can survive, and the ones with harmful mutations simply end up in the large fraction of offspring that don't survive to pass on their genes. The much rarer organisms that have beneficial mutations are much more likely to leave descendants, so that a rare beneficial mutation can leave myriads upon myriads of copies in descendants.
If you have a population like bacteria that produce generations rapidly, there are some changes that can occur for survival yet they are still bacteria. I just listened to this podcast from RTB about these bacteria they've found in the clouds that are UV resistant. What I find remarkable is that they are saying that we are only aware of about 10% of all microorganisms because the rest can't be cultured. That is amazing.
True but the bat is a mammal, not a bird. The wing structure would have to be different to produce flight. Amen?Is your argument that God does not know how to grow feathers on a mammal? It seems a rather odd limitation for an omnipotent Being. This still leaves open the different wing structures of pterosaurs and bats (neither have feathers, or at least the feathers of pterosaurs were so strand-like as to be fur for all practical purposes), the question of horizontal flukes for whales vs. vertical flukes for ichthyosaurs and fish, etc. These things have explanations in terms of branching descent with modification, but not in terms of a Creator "re-using good design" (unless, perhaps, we assert that He decided some designs were bad and not worth re-using?).
Well actually, with the bat we aren't starting with a bird design but a mammal one something like a rat, I would imagine. Why limit God in how He wants to create. It's almost like you're saying that all flying creatures should have feathered wings. I don't understand that line of thinking. I think for what the bat does and for its abilities, those are perfect wings for the bat. Mammals are typically heavier than birds. I am assuming that bats are the same. To create lift, you would have to have a different design. Remember when man started to try his hand at flight using bird wing structures, it was a huge flop because man is much heavier than a bird.
In a sense, you are right that some designs were not reused but not because they were bad but because a) He was working toward a goal - us and b) the climate and atmosphere were no longer able to support them because it was heading for this perfect time in this particular universe's history in regards to this planet when a group such as us could exist and thrive.
We don't know if the GULO gene was disabled in Adam and Eve, now do we? Vitamin C would be a healthy attribute to have in your system if you are one that will not taste death with so many microbes floating around. According to the story, they would have lived forever had they not sinned. At that point, we became like the animals who were dying. Something physically changed. God says that there were physical changes ie pain in childbirth and death. I find it so interesting that you consistently refer to this as "disabled" as though the switch were turned off.The gene (or a promoter region associated with the gene) is altered so that the gene is not transcribed into protein. Let us assume that there actually were an Adam and Eve, and that they were separately created from the ancestral populations of great apes, lesser apes, and monkeys. Now, do you suppose that these other primates had, at creation, functional GULO genes and lost them at the Fall? Or did God choose to create all these separate primate kinds with identically-crippled GULO pseudogenes, and then, at the Fall, disable Adam's and Eve's GULO genes with a mutation that exactly mimicked the disabling features of ape genes?
There are several different ways to turn a gene into a pseudogene. There's no obvious reason for a Creator to use one version for all anthropoid primates (including humans created in His own image), and a different version for guinea pigs. One might suppose, indeed, that God would either disable all GULO genes (in species where He wanted them disabled) identically, or would use a distinct and unique method to disable the human ones (to distinguish humans from other animals). On the other hand, the pattern of similarities and differences among GULO pseudogenes exactly fits the expectations of common descent of humans and other mammals.
Note that there are small differences between one primate species' GULO pseudogene and anothers: these are presumably neutral mutations accumulated through random genetic drift. The human GULO pseudogene is more similar to that of a chimpanzee than either is to the gorilla version, and more similar to the gorilla version than either is to the orangutan version, etc. This makes no sense if we assume that gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and humans are separately created kinds accumulating changes independently and randomly; the pattern makes sense if we share a more recent common ancestor with chimps than with gorillas, and a more recent common ancestor with gorillas than with orangutans, and so forth.
I am just saying that the GULO could have functioned in us at first and then been disabled once man sinned. Just an unsubstantiated theory.
Vera
Vera replied to me:
For example, for evolution to work, the first organism that has a heart must have a mechanism for producing blood such as the skeleton, some sort of brain to regulate the flow of blood, and a means to oxygenate that blood. The brain has to regulate fluid level, otherwise the animal will die from hypovolemia or isotonic overhydration. In addition, the organism must have the means to saturate that blood with a food source that is broken down into microscopic sizes so that it can be transported to every tissue in the host's body.
.
In human embryos (and, I would suppose, other vertebrate embryos), red blood cells are produced in the liver; the bone marrow takes up the job later. Livers are older than bones (an organ homologous to the liver is found in the amphioxus, an invertebrate chordate), so bones would not have been necessary to blood production initially.
The ability to regulate fluid levels is, surely, much older than blood or vertebrates (or brains), given the number and variety of organisms living in the sea with fluid flowing through their bodies. Digestion, the ability to break down food into easily-transportable molecules, of course goes back to single-celled organisms. Insects (which don't have red blood cells) have hearts but not complete circulatory systems, so obviously one does not need a complete, closed circulatory system to start having blood and circulation. Conversely, fluid can be circulated in the body by muscle movements used to swim or crawl, without a heart, for small, relatively simple animals.
Amphioxus, that primitive relative of vertebrates, has neither circulatory system nor much of a respiratory system: it absorbs oxygen through the skin and manages to transport nutrients without proper blood. So a very rudimentary circulatory system could be of benefit even if it doesn't, by our standards, work very well.
You don't need, in short, every feature of modern mammals in place to have a workable, rudimentary circulatory system.
The animal then must reproduce these features with a viable female to keep these things going. At some point, there must be a first one and for the millions of generations of bacteria that scientists have observed, not one of them has even become a two celled animal. .
Since entire organs and vessels don't need to pop into existence fully-formed (minor modifications of already-existing structures will serve, before being further modified in the course of descent), an individual with a precursor to some element of the modern circulatory system should have no trouble mating with other individuals who lack that element: some of their offspring will inherit it, and perhaps others will not.
Some cyanobacteria (photosynthesizing bacteria) do form long multicellular strands, but I don't think they have been directly observed to evolve this feature from a unicellular state. On the other hand, single-celled individuals of Chlorella vulgaris, a green algae, have been grown in culture. They retain the single-celled state indefinitely, unless a predatory protist is put in; when this was done, a mutation favoring multicellular colonies took over. At one point, there were colonies with hundreds of cells, but they were quickly outcompeted by eight-cell colonies that were too big for the one-celled predator but small enough to use available food efficiently.
So it has been demonstrated in the lab that multicellularity is evolvable.
I am just saying that the GULO could have functioned in us at first and then been disabled once man sinned. Just an unsubstantiated theory. .
A "theory" is an explanation for something. But your speculation about the GULO pseudogene is, precisely, not an explanation: it does not tell us why the pseudogene is disabled, nor why it is identically disabled in many primate species but disabled a different way in guinea pigs.
A similar point applies to your comments (not included above) about bats. Yes, bats are denser than birds; like other mammals, they lack the hollow bones and air sacs of birds. And yes, God could presumably create flying animals however He'd like. But that doesn't explain, even in an unsubstantiated way, why God didn't bother to equip bats with hollow bones and air sacs. The point is not that "God wouldn't do it this way," or even "there's no discernable reason why God would do it this way," but "there's a perfectly straightforward reason why evolution would do it this way, but no obvious reason why God would, unless He was trying to convince us that evolution is real.
Steven,
I wonder sometimes if the YEC group and the evolutionists are not cut from the same piece of cloth because you take something so complex and make it sound so simple. There are an extraordinary number of parameters in place causing growth and development in a fetus until it boggles the mind as to how many and you are trying to transpose those parameters onto naturalistic evolution where none of these mechanisms exist. It oversimplifies a very complex set of circumstances.
Fuz Rana just did another excellent podcast on the problems of going from a knuckle walking quadruped to an animal that walks erect. For this to occur, there are about 10 things that need to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY. I hate to shout, but it seems that these points seem to get lost in the shuffle with these over simplified arguments. The YEC argue so that it very simply could all happen any ole way because God does whatever He feels like and it is just that simple.
Can anyone say, "HOX genes?"
You can't make some of these changes incrementally. I think at the same time you are studying these things, you need to go to Barnes and Noble and pick up an NCLEX review book and if you still think that all these things happened naturalistically, I honestly don't know....
Algae is more like a plant than an animal. Clustering in non-desrcript blobs is not quite the same as organizing individual organs from one cell.
One celled organisms that multiply on a greater scale than say a horse, are supposed to evolve in adaptable ways which shows a sort of logic beings that they had to live in such a harsh environment. But for all their abilities to adapt, they do not organize into other organisms even after many trillions of generations. They are still bacteria and that is the point. If your theory were true, bacteria should be able to evolve past being bacteria since the proposal of evolution is that a mouse type creature gave rise to all mammals on the planet after the KT extinction and please do not insult my intelligence by telling me that I don't understand your theory. That is the standard answer when you're caught.
A similar point applies to your comments (not included above) about bats. Yes, bats are denser than birds; like other mammals, they lack the hollow bones and air sacs of birds. And yes, God could presumably create flying animals however He'd like. But that doesn't explain, even in an unsubstantiated way, why God didn't bother to equip bats with hollow bones and air sacs. The point is not that "God wouldn't do it this way," or even "there's no discernable reason why God would do it this way," but "there's a perfectly straightforward reason why evolution would do it this way, but no obvious reason why God would, unless He was trying to convince us that evolution is real. Bad argument. I think it is obvious that God simply enjoys creating different and unique things. The oceans are full of creatures that are unique.
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
I wonder sometimes if the YEC group and the evolutionists are not cut from the same piece of cloth because you take something so complex and make it sound so simple. There are an extraordinary number of parameters in place causing growth and development in a fetus until it boggles the mind as to how many and you are trying to transpose those parameters onto naturalistic evolution where none of these mechanisms exist. It oversimplifies a very complex set of circumstances. .
Vera, a "parameter" is a continuous variable; it is not a synonym for "factor," or "process," or "chain of chemical reactions." I don't think that "there are an extraordinary number of parameters in place, etc." actually makes sense. I'm not denying that embryonic development is extraordinarily complex; I'm just pointing out that you literally don't know what you're talking about and are in no position to evaluate how likely such processes are to evolve through gradual modification of more primitive processes.
Fuz Rana just did another excellent podcast on the problems of going from a knuckle walking quadruped to an animal that walks erect. For this to occur, there are about 10 things that need to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY. I hate to shout, but it seems that these points seem to get lost in the shuffle with these over simplified arguments. The YEC argue so that it very simply could all happen any ole way because God does whatever He feels like and it is just that simple. .
On the one hand, we know that chimpanzees and gorillas can, without any sort of modification at all, walk bipedally for short distances. On the other hand, back in the 1940s, Dr. E.J. Slijper reported on a goat born (presumably as the result of a developmental disorder rather than a mutation) without forelimbs. It managed to get around on just its hind legs. Oddly, it exhibited several simultaneous modifications of its pelvis and chest just as a result of the loss of forelimbs and being forced to adopt a bipedal stance.
In light of these facts, I'm inclined to suspect that Dr. Rana, a biochemist, is mistaken on the one hand about the need for multiple simultaneous alterations of physiology for bipedalism to emerge, and on the other hand on the unlikelihood of multiple changes happening at once (since the changes do not necessarily have separate causes).
Algae is more like a plant than an animal. Clustering in non-desrcript blobs is not quite the same as organizing individual organs from one cell. .
You spoke of the transition from single cells to multiple cells. Now you're moving the goalposts. I should point out that sponges are, themselves, little more than "nondescript blobs;" they have no distinct tissue types or cell layers. There are, on the other hand, animals with two or three distinct cell layers that have very little in the way of distinct organs.
One celled organisms that multiply on a greater scale than say a horse, are supposed to evolve in adaptable ways which shows a sort of logic beings that they had to live in such a harsh environment. But for all their abilities to adapt, they do not organize into other organisms even after many trillions of generations. They are still bacteria and that is the point. If your theory were true, bacteria should be able to evolve past being bacteria since the proposal of evolution is that a mouse type creature gave rise to all mammals on the planet after the KT extinction and please do not insult my intelligence by telling me that I don't understand your theory. That is the standard answer when you're caught. .
Even the fundamentalists at AiG know (although they don't always take their own advice) that "if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" is a bad argument. On the one hand, a single bacterial species like E. coli can exhibit more biochemical and genetic diversity than exists between humans and lemurs. On the other hand, what would it profit a bacterium to have a mutation that enabled it to fill a "non-bacterial" ecological niche? All those niches have been filled for a couple of billion years; a amoeba-looking bacterium (much less one suited for a fishlike existence) would be facing competition from much-longer-adapted eukaryotes.
On yet another hand, there are, of course, all those ecological niches for bacteria that continue to exist; it would be rather odd if all bacteria just evolved into something else when perfectly good niches continued to exist for them.
Mouse-sized insectivores evolved into a variety of mammals after the dinosaurs had been cleared out and ecological niches for larger animals were open. As I pointed out in an earlier post in some other thread, this took several million years: large mammals did not just appear right after the K-T boundary as though they'd been "poofed" into existence by miracles.
I know, I know, God just wanted to wait until the planet was ready for large mammals. And this took him several million years, not because He had to wait for the results of millions of years of mutations and natural selection, but because, I don't know, He just likes working slowly. Just as God happens to like to create creatures that fall into the nested hierarchy pattern we'd expect from branching descent with modification. I mean, you say that "God simply enjoys creating different and unique things," and then scamper about desperately for a reason He wouldn't like creating, e.g. bats with feathers, or birds with mammary glands or three bones in the middle ear.
Steven
Vera, a "parameter" is a continuous variable; it is not a synonym for "factor," or "process," or "chain of chemical reactions." I don't think that "there are an extraordinary number of parameters in place, etc." actually makes sense. I'm not denying that embryonic development is extraordinarily complex; I'm just pointing out that you literally don't know what you're talking about and are in no position to evaluate how likely such processes are to evolve through gradual modification of more primitive processes.I have spent days going over this stuff to pass this NCLEX exam. Please do not tell me that I am not aware of embryonic development. It is not only complicated but absolutely precise and if man doesn't intervene at the right time, the child would most likely die. It is so precise that each stage has marked characteristics that are common among all fetuses. It shows a sort of logic, you know what I mean? You can't take those mechanisms and put them on naturalistic evolution because it doesn't work that way.
On the one hand, we know that chimpanzees and gorillas can, without any sort of modification at all, walk bipedally for short distances. On the other hand, back in the 1940s, Dr. E.J. Slijper reported on a goat born (presumably as the result of a developmental disorder rather than a mutation) without forelimbs. It managed to get around on just its hind legs. Oddly, it exhibited several simultaneous modifications of its pelvis and chest just as a result of the loss of forelimbs and being forced to adopt a bipedal stance. I would REALLY have to see that one, my friend for some proof. I don't even find a reference in the evolution bible - wikipedia, which is remarkable because if there were such absolute proof, they would be the first ones to report it complete with pics and skeletal remains. People with handicaps adapt but it isn't easy. That kid that was born without arms or legs gets around by wiggling his torso. We can knuckle walk for a while but it is painful after a while because we weren't designed to walk that way. Did the goat make more erect goats?
In light of these facts, I'm inclined to suspect that Dr. Rana, a biochemist, is mistaken on the one hand about the need for multiple simultaneous alterations of physiology for bipedalism to emerge, and on the other hand on the unlikelihood of multiple changes happening at once (since the changes do not necessarily have separate causes)You're wrong. They are necessary. There are certain design features in knuckle walkers that don't work for standing erect.
You spoke of the transition from single cells to multiple cells. Now you're moving the goalposts. I should point out that sponges are, themselves, little more than "nondescript blobs;" they have no distinct tissue types or cell layers. There are, on the other hand, animals with two or three distinct cell layers that have very little in the way of distinct organs.I think you were making the point that algae could organize to become a living being. I was thinking more in the animal realm. That is why I made the reference to plants. Each of these has a design for its own function. I also heard of some recent documentation that sponges came and went during those early times of the earth. Whenever life could appear, it did appear. My children and I have been enjoying these videos by Discovery. I got them for $47 on Earth Day. Anyway, I just look at these creatures and I wonder how anyone can get beyond the design of it all.
I said: One celled organisms that multiply on a greater scale than say a horse, are supposed to evolve in adaptable ways which shows a sort of logic beings that they had to live in such a harsh environment. But for all their abilities to adapt, they do not organize into other organisms even after many trillions of generations. They are still bacteria and that is the point. If your theory were true, bacteria should be able to evolve past being bacteria since the proposal of evolution is that a mouse type creature gave rise to all mammals on the planet after the KT extinction and please do not insult my intelligence by telling me that I don't understand your theory. That is the standard answer when you're caught. You said: Even the fundamentalists at AiG know (although they don't always take their own advice) that "if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" is a bad argument. On the one hand, a single bacterial species like E. coli can exhibit more biochemical and genetic diversity than exists between humans and lemurs. On the other hand, what would it profit a bacterium to have a mutation that enabled it to fill a "non-bacterial" ecological niche? All those niches have been filled for a couple of billion years; a amoeba-looking bacterium (much less one suited for a fishlike existence) would be facing competition from much-longer-adapted eukaryotes.I don't see how your response has anything to do with what I said. The fact that some species existed at the same time doesn't falsify the fact that bacteria after many trillions of generations can adapt but it is still bacteria. And in fact, that fact points toward a Creator designing creatures who can live in harmony within a habitat. It is amazing how these life cycles work where, for example, plankton supports the herring, which deposit millions upon millions of eggs during their spawning. Sea birds, whales, dolphins and sharks all have a feast on these little creatures and yet the process goes on.
Mouse-sized insectivores evolved into a variety of mammals after the dinosaurs had been cleared out and ecological niches for larger animals were open. As I pointed out in an earlier post in some other thread, this took several million years: large mammals did not just appear right after the K-T boundary as though they'd been "poofed" into existence by miracles.There is no absolute evidence that this can occur and I believe you are mistaken. There are no transitions between the mouse and the horse. According to that one paper I cited, it was within a few million years. Yes, it took time for the newly created kinds to fill the niches but it doesn't stand to reason that they weren't created whole first. It is a radiation event with lots of creating and then stasis again. The fossil record is incomplete, after all. Finding the one or two that died initially might be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
I know, I know, God just wanted to wait until the planet was ready for large mammals. And this took him several million years, not because He had to wait for the results of millions of years of mutations and natural selection, but because, I don't know, He just likes working slowly. Just as God happens to like to create creatures that fall into the nested hierarchy pattern we'd expect from branching descent with modification. I mean, you say that "God simply enjoys creating different and unique things," and then scamper about desperately for a reason He wouldn't like creating, e.g. bats with feathers, or birds with mammary glands or three bones in the middle ear. I do think God is slow and meticulous. Remember part of the creation process is to demonstrate who He is to us. Romans 1:20 So yes, slow and meticulous, never in a hurry would be evidenced in creation. It isn't that He couldn't but that in this faith-based testable universe, He wants to demonstrate to us who He is through the things that are made. He worked within the laws He established here as opposed to doing a lot of things that He could have done apart from those laws. Where these things are so obvious that it rules out the possibility of nature at the wheel, He makes mention of those things in His Word so that you can know that He is the One true God and that He is real.
You are just critiquing the way He created things, which to me, is a non-issue. When you create a universe, we will be sure to critique you on the design of the creatures you create. deal? Scientists explaining these things can't help themselves. They eventually can't find any other word but "design."
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
I have spent days going over this stuff to pass this NCLEX exam. Please do not tell me that I am not aware of embryonic development. It is not only complicated but absolutely precise and if man doesn't intervene at the right time, the child would most likely die. It is so precise that each stage has marked characteristics that are common among all fetuses. It shows a sort of logic, you know what I mean? You can't take those mechanisms and put them on naturalistic evolution because it doesn't work that way.I don't believe I said you were unaware of embryonic development; I said you were unaware of how embryonic development might have evolved or what practical barriers to it actually exist. I've pointed out before that mutations are ubiqitous, and, given the ability of organisms to produce more offspring than are needed to replace the parents, a species can afford quite a few mutations that harm embryonic development while waiting for the rare ones that modify it in a survivable and beneficial way.
I should point out, though, that human embryos can split into two individuals on occasion, each of which will often develop normally. Conversely, two separate human embryos, early enough in development, can merge into a single (tetrazygotic chimera) individual. This would seem to suggest that in fact embryonic development has a certain flexibility to it: the process can cope with some fairly drastic interruptions or alterations without necessarily failing.
Surely it is not absurd to suppose that this might apply also to many changes produced by mutations.
I would REALLY have to see that one, my friend for some proof. I don't even find a reference in the evolution bible - wikipedia, which is remarkable because if there were such absolute proof, they would be the first ones to report it complete with pics and skeletal remains. People with handicaps adapt but it isn't easy. That kid that was born without arms or legs gets around by wiggling his torso. We can knuckle walk for a while but it is painful after a while because we weren't designed to walk that way. Did the goat make more erect goats?See here and here for a discussion of the goat.
When I stated (and apparently this is not actually settled) that the goat's lack of front limbs was apparently a developmental defect, I meant to imply that it was not genetic, and would not be inherited by offspring (of which, in any case, the poor dead goat had none). My point was not about mutation: it was about how changes to one aspect of the anatomy could automatically alter other aspects of the anatomy without the need for (additional) mutations. I'm not sure whether our inability to easily take up knuckle-walking is entirely relevant to whether knuckle-walkers could take up occasional bipedalism: the change might not be equally easy both ways.
Note another point in the Pharyngula article. You have said, more than once, that you think of a mutation as a striking change, like an extra toe. That is, by the way, the wrong way to think about a mutation: mutations are changes in the DNA, and may produce no, or extremely subtle, or gross anatomical changes.
But anyway, the article that mentions the bipedal goat also mentions a bunch of rough-skinned newts killed in a sudden freeze, which were dissected and examined by noted paleontologist and evolutionist Neil (Your Inner Fish) Shubin. There were many differences in bone structure and number of bones among these newts, yet they were all of the same species. Even where there are striking changes, these don't automatically cause individuals to belong to a different species.
On the other hand, there are a number of good species where the differences between typical members of the different species is small: lions and tigers, or species of cichlid fish that differ only in color (and can interbreed, but don't, as long as they can see they're different colors). There are "cryptic species" that are indistinguishable from one another without genetic testing or close observation of behavior.
It seems to me that you'd be in a better position to discuss mutations if you understood what they are and how they work.
Post a Comment