“IF the fossil records show discontinuity, then that is what it shows- period- to go beyond the actual evidence and claim it shows continuity when you don’t have the slightest evidence to show it does is NOT science”
In science we pick the most parsimonious explanation. The goal is to acquire knowledge, not to have it from the very beginning. We almost certainly do NOT currently possess the complete record of all life that ever existed on Earth. If we get lucky, we’ll one day uncover all the fossils that happened to survive the geological activity.
1. My bachelor’s thesis was on the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of mitochondria and eukaryotes. This is a hotly debated question among evolutionary biologists. We don’t yet have an explanation that accounts for all the data. Who knows, maybe God made eukaryotes by a mechanism that creationists may some day discover? If you or someone else wants to do real ID science, maybe this is the place to start right now!
2. No one is making the claim that antibiotic resistance is the same as speciation if that is what you are getting at. The role of horizontal gene transfer in the possible evolution of obligate bacterial species is hotly debated right now.
3. You are actually correct about this. They claimed that Sinosauropteryx, a fossil found in 1994 by a farmer in Liaoning province, northeastern China was a feathered dinosaur. Their experimental methods were flawed and they now regard the “feathers” as tough fibers of dermal collagen.
“Despite all this, there is nothing to preclude the idea that reptiles couldn’t infact have feathers for such things as displaying rituals, warmth”
No one is precluding it, quite the contrary. Evolutionary biologists regard the original function of feathers to be just that. Some bird lineages evolved the structures necessary for flight and others didn’t, using feathers for warmth.
4. “As well, a deleterious mutation, regardless of any slight positive effects it might accidentally provide, are NOT the mechanism through which macroevolution works.”
No one is arguing that all life on Earth is getting progressively more complex or that genomes are getting bigger and bigger. There are unicellular organisms which have enormous genomes in the billions of base pairs. Likewise, there are simple unicellular organisms that are better suited to their environment (their niche) than larger life-forms.
“Sickle Cell causes more deaths than it saves, and is a serious detriment”
Not if their is an outbreak of Malaria. It provides great resistance if only one allele contains the gene.
“There is also nothing to say mutations can not result in slight gains or advantages but it MUST be noted that these fall squarely within DESIGNED species specific parameters”
Are you trying to say that organisms are genetically programmed to mutate? If so, that’s not a mutation. I’m confused.
“and are NOT a net gain of new non species specific info NEEDED by macroevolution.”
There are sometimes insertions and duplications of DNA nucleotides/codons during transcription. This is very significant in many cases. Are you trying to say that only the length of a nucleotide sequence affects the amino acid/protein product?
5. I agree that the fossil record does not represent the complete record of life on Earth and I’ve already stated that geological forces destroy fossils.
“This chart is such a deceitful chart, that one would think the scientists that invented it would be ashamed to be exposed for the charlatans they are WHEN they got caught!”
There is a differences between being deliberately deceitful and working with the evidence that we are fortunate enough to possess. Name-calling is also a pretty bad way to argue. Remember that Monty Python skit “ argument clinic”?
“#1, there is NO proof of a relationship between the ‘earliest’ fishes to land animals”
Don’t leave amphibians out of the picture.
“How about them 1000 or 10,000 or so OTHER TRASITIONALS in between the HUGELY different two species that MUST have existed while this supposed evolution was going on? Where are they?”
They are totally aware of this fact. If we get lucky, more transitional fossils will be discovered in the future. Or course, that’s assuming that they haven’t been destroyed by the very real geological activity.
6. “As well, the differences are in the billions”
Differences of what are in the billions?
“Macroevolutionists have no answer as the relatively ‘short’ period of time that evos claim man and ape diverged, could NOT account for these differences genetically.”
Are you referring to the molecular clock? There are ways of testing whether or not base pair divergence in species somewhat correlates with a molecular clock. One method is the relative rate test. In the case of hominoids, the differences between the rhesus monkey and the various hominoids ranges from 806 (to Orangutan) to 767 (human). Molecular clocks are generally inexact but the trend indicates a slight slow-down in molecular divergence. Also, the relative rate test, applied to DNA sequence data from various organisms, has shown that rates of sequence evolution are often quite similar among taxa that are fairly closely related. However, distantly related taxa often have rather different evolutionary rates. For example, the rate of sequence evolution in rodents is two to three times greater than primates.
Of course, molecular clocks have very little to do with morphological divergence considering the existence of pleisiomorphic genes.
7. 2nd law is not just about contact geometry, that’s only a small piece of it. Chemicals maintain their bonds so long as energy is applied below the activation energy (Ea). I only took general physics and chemistry while in college so I can’t really discuss the higher mathematics.
1) “What are the specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that are inherent in every living organism as we know them?”
Are you asking about the origin of living systems? I don’t know. That is a frontier for modern biology.
2) “Evolution calls for the development of ever more volume and ever greater variety and complexity of data in the genetic code of living organisms as they allegedly first emerged, then progressed from, simplest forms to the present broad spectrum of variety. “
No, it calls for advantageous adaptions to ecosystem niches. Sometimes simple unicellular life-forms can fare better in environments hostile to larger, more complex organisms. Look at the little chemotropic creatures living at the bottom of the ocean trenches or the worm that can survive the vacuum of space. Amazing!
8. “The bones, wrist, and structure of bones could NOT support the fish’s weight on land, or even underwater on the bottom.”
How did you (or someone else) come to this conclusion? Tiktaalik had a rather robust ribcage and large muscle facets. It’s just a hypothesis anyway, no one was around to witness the late Devonian period.
9. “I’ll be posting many more such examples of macro evolutionists ‘best examples’ a bit later, such as insertion points of viruses in both apes and man show a link between the two species because... blah blah blah... these retroviruses must have been passed down from generation to generation, and since man has SIMILAR retroviruses, this must therefore mean the two are related”
Those are not the “best examples” that I would use. They seem rather irrelevant.
[[Some bird lineages evolved the structures necessary for flight and others didn’t, using feathers for warmth.]]
Really? Got any evidence showing these evolutionary miracles? Didn’t htink so- just more a priori assumoptions
[[If we get lucky, we’ll one day uncover all the fossils that happened to survive the geological activity.]]
Swell cop out-
[[If you or someone else wants to do real ID science, maybe this is the place to start right now!]]
Sure- ‘real science’ accordign to whom? Those who DON’T follow the evidence and stop when it’s prudent to do so? Those who extrapolate fantastic scenarios from evidences that don’t warrent doing so? Golly- could I become a story-teller too? Thanks- but I’ll stick to just investigating the actual evidences instead of dreaming up scenrios that include ignroing biological, mathematical, chemical and natural llaws.
[[2. No one is making the claim that antibiotic resistance is the same as speciation if that is what you are getting at.]]
You might want ot read FR a bit more carefully if that’s what you htinkj- PLENTY of peopel here have asserted just that.
[[The role of horizontal gene transfer in the possible evolution of obligate bacterial species is hotly debated right now.]]
Swell- but hte point still remains- the ONLY way for a species to achieve new non species specific info that is an absolute MUST in macroevolution, is via lateral gene transference- in ALL species- however, we can’t even discover that it happens outside of bacteria
[[Likewise, there are simple unicellular organisms that are better suited to their environment (their niche) than larger life-forms.]]
Yeah? Aint microevolution neato?
[[Not if their is an outbreak of Malaria. It provides great resistance if only one allele contains the gene.]]
Net loss does not a ‘positive mutation’ make no matter how you slice it- as well, it’s still just that- a mutaiton- Macroevolution is impossible via RS+M
[[Are you trying to say that organisms are genetically programmed to mutate?]]
NO- They are programmed to deal with mutations- big difference
[[Are you trying to say that only the length of a nucleotide sequence affects the amino acid/protein product?]]
No- I said what I said
[[There is a differences between being deliberately deceitful and working with the evidence that we are fortunate enough to possess.]]
That chart is DELIBERATELY deceitful- those skulls are all drawn the same size when the FACT is that they drew a rat sized aquatic species next to a hippo sized animal skull, and made it INTENTIONALLY look like there was a nice neat progression of the jaw bone between very similar species which was NOT the case at all- this isn’t ‘working with hte evidence’ this was blatant deceit!
[[They are totally aware of this fact. If we get lucky, more transitional fossils will be discovered in the future. Or course, that’s assuming that they haven’t been destroyed by the very real geological activity.]]
Nother nice cop out- At least there are some scientsits who study species that are honest enough to admit there whould be reams of evidence IF macroevolution happened and millions of species supposedly gradually changed- the sad fact is htough that ALL we find are fully completed fully functional species in the myriad fossils we do have. Not one single instance of gradual morphological change- just a LOT of assumptions about completed species.
[[Differences of what are in the billions?]]
The remarkable similarity among the genomes of humans and the African great apes could warrant their classification together as a single genus. However, whereas there are many similarities in the biology, life history, and behavior of humans and great apes, there are also many striking differences that need to be explained. The complete sequencing of the human genome creates an opportunity to ask which genes are involved in those differences. A logical approach would be to use the chimpanzee genome for comparison and the other great ape genomes for confirmation. Until such a great ape genome project can become reality, the next best approach must be educated guesses of where the genetic differences may lie and a careful analysis of differences that we do know about. Our group recently discovered a human-specific inactivating mutation in the CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase gene, which results in the loss of expression of a common mammalian cell-surface sugar throughout all cells in the human body. We are currently investigating the implications of this difference for a variety of issues relevant to humans, ranging from pathogen susceptibility to brain development. Evaluating the uniqueness of this finding has also led us to explore the existing literature on the broader issue of genetic differences between humans and great apes. The aim of this brief review is to consider a listing of currently known genetic differences between humans and great apes and to suggest avenues for future research. The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNH-456JS82-3X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=74c145cd4ff3a5b7e46430e86e9a0ac9
[[For example, the rate of sequence evolution in rodents is two to three times greater than primates.]]
You are talking about MICROEvolutionary change NOT macroevolutionary change- there is no evidence for macroevolution- so this ‘rate’ can’t even begin to be measured- even with imaginary scenarios of change.
[[Of course, molecular clocks have very little to do with morphological divergence considering the existence of pleisiomorphic genes.]]
Admission? Nah- could’nt be.
[[Are you asking about the origin of living systems? I don’t know. That is a frontier for modern biology.]]
I’m not askign anyhting- I gave a link that fully explained and exposed the rediculousness of the idea that open systems are any better for living systems than closed ones based on crystal formations.
[[No, it calls for advantageous adaptions to ecosystem niches.]]
No, it calls for ever increasing self assembling complexities of NEW non species specific systems, a process that violates entropy rules as laid out in that link I provided
[[Sometimes simple unicellular life-forms can fare better in environments hostile to larger, more complex organisms.]]
This is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion, and nothign but a rabbirt trail to avoid the problem of macroevolution and hte second law.
[[How did you (or someone else) come to this conclusion? Tiktaalik had a rather robust ribcage and large muscle facets.]]
You’re leavign out the next part... and only had bones structures in it’s lobes that could not support their weight
[[It’s just a hypothesis anyway, no one was around to witness the late Devonian period.]]
JUST a theory? It’s one of the mainstays of claims for macroevolution. The Caelocanth (sp?) was once though to have been transitional because of their unique lobes, however, when one turned up, was observed, it was quickly determined it coudl NOT infact support it’s weight with it’s lobed fins, and was thrown out as the previously insisted upon transitional that science assured us existed in hte fossil records- Turns out Tiktaalik is just another lobe-finned fish with structural innadequacies the same way Caelocanth had.
[[Those are not the “best examples” that I would use. They seem rather irrelevant.]]
Those are just hte begiinning, and are hte oens most brought up here and in science books that our kids are ‘taught’ (Religious propoganda is more like it, but we’ll use ‘taught’ for now)