Originally Posted by napajohn "And yet another distraction! Yes, boys and girls, napajohn continues to duck and weave! Look at him dodge! What footwork under pressure"...
good ole lucaspa..attacking as usual..read the link that i attached ..am i dodging the question?.
YES! The link had nothing to do with DT. It has to do with large areas of granitic rock cooling
during a Flood when there was water around for conduction. But DT is formed
after the Flood. So it is irrelevant.
I also wanted to know how the amount of erosion
of the Tower could have occurred in the less than 4,000 years the Tower has been around according to YEC.
Notto gave the evolutionary explanation. I'm
not using that. Instead, I'm taking everything Flood geologists say as true and then seeing if it explains DT.
heres one for you lucas, how did sexual reproduction occur and what were the mechanisms and examples that have been found in nature?
Before I do this, let me make clear the difference between falsification and absence of evidence.
What I am doing with DT is
falsifying. That is, I am assuming YEC and Flood Geology are true and then looking at the data that is DT and seeing if the DT could be there if YEC and Flood Geology is true. So far, going by the statements used by YECers, the answer is no. Since true statements can't have false consequences, then YEC and Flood Geology are false.
You are trying to retreat into a position where we simply don't know
everything about Flood Geology. You are looking for new statements about Flood Geology. What is going to happen is that Flood Geologists are going to come up with ad hoc hypotheses to explain DT. I will tell you ahead of time that I will test those ad hoc hypotheses, in turn, by seeing if they are consistent with other data outside DT.
For sexual reproduction your implication is that we don't have the
data on how sexual reproduction actually evolved. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it is, then God is falsified. But it isn't, so God is OK. OK. Since sexual reproduction at the level of meiosis is a soft-tissue, we are not going to find fossils on this.
Now, having said that, let me say what the data of contemporary living secies says about the evolution of sexual reproduction.
Sexual reproduction started as swapping genes thru plasmids. Bacteria do it today. Then there are unicellular organisms that engage in sexual reproduction: make copies of the DNA and exchange copies. The amoeba Dictolysium is an example. Then, the simplest multicellular animal with sexual reproduction is the volvox. It has only two types of cells: the somatic cells and the sex cells. It simply gets the sex cells to fuse. No 'male' or 'female'. From this point it is easy to find intermediates for the differentiation of genders.
1. C Zimmer, The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) Amoeba Dictyostelium is single celled, but forms multicelled organism with differentiation when food supplies are low. Sexually reproduces sometimes, forms a cyst, and then asexually divides with the new genetic material. Also forms an eye of sorts from individual cells that act as lenses. Cells act and use same proteins as phagocytes in immune system.
2. DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Reviewed by G Bell in Development: Volvox. Science 282: 248, Oct. 9, 1998. Volvox (an algae) is a model system of multicellularity. Has fewer than 20 cells and only two types: soma and germ cells. Has single celled relatives, notably Chlamydomonas. There are sites on the web on Volvox. Just do a search.
find a case where species thru mutations were created?
4. Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials.In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
5. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growingon mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
4. Cooper VS, Lenski RE. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1802-4
AB - "For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment. The punctuation is caused by natural selection as rare, beneficial mutations sweep successively through the population. This experiment shows that the most elementary processes in population genetics can give rise to punctuated evolution dynamics."
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation. Mutations in these homeobox genes.
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. At the end of the study looked at over 20 proteins between the new species and found that the genetic difference was over 3%. Since the new species came from the same population as the old, the only source of the genetic difference is mutation.
of course i know what your answer will be but somehow you'll make this an attack.
You knew my answer would be these papers? Then why would you think it would be an attack?
Linear Mode
