Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by Pete Harcoff Whichever. The point is, it's not a very compelling argument, especially in light of the historical evidence.
It's not meant to be a compelling argument, but something to think about. Non repeatable (historical) science is not the same as observational science.
Originally posted by Pete Harcoff Likewise, the same applies to evolutionists.
Originally posted by Lacmeh Rize, you should educate yourself on that subject then.
Antibiotica are, like anything else in the organic world digestable. You only need to find the right kind of bacteria. For every antibiotica, there are bacteria, which can digest or have the potential. The information on how to properly digest antibiotica, which arenßt different from other organic material, is based in plasmids., I think it is called. Not in the cell heart. (For lack of a better term). These plasmids can be transferred to other bacteria, even if the species is different. Therefore, additional information goes to a certain species. Of course, not all bacteria of a given species have the same plasmids. Some have more, some less. When the humans attack with antibiotica, natural selection occurs. Those, with the correct information how to digest the stuff live, the rest dies. That can be a bacteria with many or with few plasmids. The total amount of information inherent in the bacteria doesn´t matter. Chances for a bacteria, which has stored away the past information (against past antibiotica) and the current information (against the now applied antibioticum) are highest. Wether it has stored away other information about other stuff to digest does currently not matter.
Originally posted by Rize
The observed mechanism exists, the question is whether it is responsible for large scale evolution (since I can't use the term "macro" anymore :rolleyes: )
Well, something is responsible for it - or more precisely, something is responsible for the large-scale changes in the morphology of organisms found in the fossil record over geological time.
Exactly my point. It's irrelevence or incidental relevence (since it is questionable to me) has no bearing on the correctness of the theory.
No, you are not taking my entire thoughts into account. I'm saying that you're comparing apples and oranges. Relativity is empirically verified and may be physically useful. Large scale evolution :rolleyes: is not empirically verified and is not physically useful. It merely tries to explain things. What good is it to laymen other than as a tool to shape their thinking? Yet they learn it as a child and then it changes dramatically over the course of their lives. I'm not saying there's a better way to do things... but that doesn't make this a good way.
Common descent (the term you are looking for, I believe) is empirically observed in the fossil record, and in the tell-tale signs it left in modern organisms' genotypes and phenotypes. It is merely not directly observed. Relativity is also not directly observed. It can only be verified by observing the effects it has on light waves & such. The difference of "historical" vs "non-historical" is a trifling one.
Now, you admit that the debated practicality of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not. Why then, did you bring it up? You correctly note that relativity, while probably not useful for anything now may have impact on future technological discoveries, but you offer no reason why the same cannot be said for evolution? Who knows what the future holds?
Now... Did you have to break my measily 4th paragraph into 4 separate quotes so that this can blow up into another giant quote fest?
Sorry. The train of thought moves along, and if I am to follow it, I have to make you aware of what I am responding to. I do try to minimize that when replying to you because you expressed discontent about it - I couldn't find a way around it in this post...How else could I have replied separately to the argument that relativity is "empirically verified" and the argument that relativity "may have future use", when your comments about them were part of a compound sentence?
In other words, it's a theory of origins after you remove "changing populations in the present" (do I have to say "large scale evolution" every time?). How many times do I have to tell you that I don't dispute speciation? This is why I gave up the other argument. Speciation is used in argument for evolution, but (as it's defined) it is an independant and verifiable observation.
You can say "common descent". I think that is the main problem you have with evolution. Speciation guarantees "large scale evolution" over long periods of time. After species diverge, small-scale changes become cumulative (they are not mixed back into the common gene pool). After several speciations, the differences between the most distant descendants on either line are going to be remarkable. Yes, speciation is an independent and verifiable observation. So is natural selection. And, less directly, so is common descent.
Processes are at work today, that they brought about the current diversity of life is theory (evolution). That they've contributed to the current diversity of life is fact.
Correct. There may be undiscovered processes in evolution that have also contributed, and mechanisms apart from natural selection are hotly debated among scientists now.
lol. I'd love to see a picture! Not to mention here the guys at AiG talk about it Other than that, no comment.
I actually e-mailed AiG about it. They replied - explaining pseudo-tails from a creationist perspective. I replied, reminding them that pseudo-tails were not the subject of my question, and asking them about their position on true atavistic tails. They replied with a few links and no explanation. I still have the e-mail exchange, but will not reproduce it because I do not believe AiG allows that.
There is a thread here asking for creationists to weigh in on atavistic tails:
You may get a kick out of it. There are pages & pages of nothing but people commenting on how quiet the creationists had gotten - then finally a creationist explained them as a result of us being vertebrates, and God having to give us genes for a tail to keep from breaking any of his systematic rules.
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
Rize, this is more than natural selection.
It is clearly proven, that gene transfer between species happens.
It is clearly proven, that for natural selection, the total amount of information need not rise.
__________________ Thirteen, Three and One. The numbers always matter. Many are not what they seem. The answer is in the future. The answer is in the past. The children play the game. The rules are in no order. The numbers always matter. [size=4]
By the way, back in the bad old witch-burning days, what do you think would have happened to a baby and her mother when she was born with an atavistic tail? There's you a practical application for the theory of evolution...
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith Well, something is responsible for it - or more precisely, something is responsible for the large-scale changes in the morphology of organisms found in the fossil record over geological time.
I suppose we can agree on something then.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith Common descent (the term you are looking for, I believe) is empirically observed in the fossil record, and in the tell-tale signs it left in modern organisms' genotypes and phenotypes. It is merely not directly observed. Relativity is also not directly observed. It can only be verified by observing the effects it has on light waves & such. The difference of "historical" vs "non-historical" is a trifling one.
Now, you admit that the debated practicality of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not. Why then, did you bring it up? You correctly note that relativity, while probably not useful for anything now may have impact on future technological discoveries, but you offer no reason why the same cannot be said for evolution? Who knows what the future holds?
Relativity can be tested in many ways and it has (and it's suceeded). Evolution is like goo compared to relativity. Sure the evidence "verifies" evolution, except it's changed so much. It is historical in nature and not directly observed. Relativity is empirical in nature and not directly observed. Sorry if I'm having trouble defining things, but there is a difference.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith Sorry. The train of thought moves along, and if I am to follow it, I have to make you aware of what I am responding to. I do try to minimize that when replying to you because you expressed discontent about it - I couldn't find a way around it in this post...How else could I have replied separately to the argument that relativity is "empirically verified" and the argument that relativity "may have future use", when your comments about them were part of a compound sentence?
Comment about them in a single paragraph and reexamine them as a single thought rather than separate arguments.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith You can say "common descent". I think that is the main problem you have with evolution. Speciation guarantees "large scale evolution" over long periods of time. After species diverge, small-scale changes become cumulative (they are not mixed back into the common gene pool). After several speciations, the differences between the most distant descendants on either line are going to be remarkable. Yes, speciation is an independent and verifiable observation. So is natural selection. And, less directly, so is common descent.
Speciation does not guarantee "large scale evolution" over time. It guarantees large scale speciation over time. That "the differences are going to be remarkable" is merely an assumption (by remarkable, I assume you mean things will grow wings and eyes and such ). You assume that there is a large time scale to work with as well.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith Correct. There may be undiscovered processes in evolution that have also contributed, and mechanisms apart from natural selection are hotly debated among scientists now.
Or there may not be and common descent (thanks) may not be a reality.
I actually e-mailed AiG about it. They replied - explaining pseudo-tails from a creationist perspective. I replied, reminding them that pseudo-tails were not the subject of my question, and asking them about their position on true atavistic tails. They replied with a few links and no explanation. I still have the e-mail exchange, but will not reproduce it because I do not believe AiG allows that.
There is a thread here asking for creationists to weigh in on atavistic tails:
You may get a kick out of it. There are pages & pages of nothing but people commenting on how quiet the creationists had gotten - then finally a creationist explained them as a result of us being vertebrates, and God having to give us genes for a tail to keep from breaking any of his systematic rules.
Nice. So the 3 coccyx vertebrae are enlarged and not fused? It looks like a tail, but perhaps it is merely a pathology? The "5 vertebrae tail" (figured 2.2.1. talkorigins) is not elaborated on. Did that one have extra coccyx vertebrae, or were the S5 and S4 vertebrae part of the "tail"? This is interesting and provides something to talk about, but it doesn't prove anything to me.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith By the way, back in the bad old witch-burning days, what do you think would have happened to a baby and her mother when she was born with an atavistic tail? There's you a practical application for the theory of evolution...
No, that's a practical application of genetics, x-rays (which reveal simply enlarged/unfused vertebrae) and the increase in knowledge of deformities.
Originally posted by Rize No, that's a practical application of genetics, x-rays (which reveal simply enlarged/unfused vertebrae) and the increase in knowledge of deformities.
If it isn't a deformity on a doggie or monkey, why do you call it a deformity on a person? X-rays tell you what's inside it, not how it got there. Genetics cannot explain a tail, unless it is already recognized that our genes are the same as all primate genes to a large degree.
These folks, lacking the correct evolutionary explanation, would undoubtedly conclude that a child born with a tail was conceived by a beast (if not The Beast), and would punish mother and child accordingly.
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
I'll have to come back tonight to reply. I have a billiards game to get to by 3pm & I need a shower. By the way, I have not forgotten the "genetic evidence" post. I have it started, but have gotten distracted by interesting threads on here, and by lots of activity at home. I'll be back on that (hopefully tonight)...
Regards until then.
Jerry
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith If it isn't a deformity on a doggie or monkey, why do you call it a deformity on a person? X-rays tell you what's inside it, not how it got there. Genetics cannot explain a tail, unless it is already recognized that our genes are the same as all primate genes to a large degree.
These folks, lacking the correct evolutionary explanation, would undoubtedly conclude that a child born with a tail was conceived by a beast (if not The Beast), and would punish mother and child accordingly.
Should we have some kind of celebration about the ignorance of past centuries? Should I help by pointing out the absurdities that used to be good science?
Now, do these tails have muscular control? What is the nature of tails in apes? Do they have additional vertebrae or elongated vertebrae? There are similar structures in various animals. That tails are esentially extended spinal cords and found in numerous animals does not exclude the possibility of a genetically deformed tail in tail-less vertebraes. Does it?
Other than that, no comment.
(Thanks to Neo for the link to news article) 
Linear Mode
