"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[Jimmy D]

1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed 'earliest' horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O. C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where 'both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus'.1 In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: 'Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.' Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?
   
   
2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.
   
   
3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly 'intermediate' stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.
   
   
4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.
   
   ref
   
   I wouldn't brag about your horse evolutionism.

Why don't you go and look directly at scientific research rather than creationist propaganda websites? Do you really think those inane points are valid? The fossils are found at the surface so they can't be old enough? Good grief.

................ (I was going to go through them but noticed DM has already done so)...................

I was interested in who this horse 'expert' of yours is and was surpised to see Peter Hastie is a Senior Lecturer in Vetinary science and education at the University of Glasgow. Until I noticed he's the wrong Peter Hastie, yours is the Rev. Peter Hastie - Principal and Pastoral Dean at Presbyterian Theological College, Melbourne where he lectures in systematic theology and apologetics.

I also noticed that the fossil discoveries and horse evolution models (O.C.Marsh) that he is discussing were made in 1879.



I'll ask again, why don't you use actual scientific papers and articles for your 'research' rather than garbage like this, is it intellectual laziness or are you frightened of what you might discover?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Such as the inability to properly recognize Pluto for what it is

Pluto is a space rock. Just like all other space rocks.
We label them and group them into categories, rather arbitrarily, in a way that makes sense to group them: by abstraction of shared properties.

As we learn more about space rocks, we'll uncover more and more about what they have in common and with other space rocks and with wich they do not.

As that knowledge expands, so will the grouping/labeling/categorising system in general.

None of that changes anything about what Pluto is.
It only (potentially) changes something about which set it is included in.

; or the inability to properly recognize Thalidomide as a dangerous drug; or the inability to properly recognize Nebraska Man as a fake;

It seems to me that it was science that exposed these things.

or the inability to recognize God's holidays, hymns, and churches as God's holidays, hymns, and churches; etc.

lol?

Science is myopic.

Whateva man

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well done sir...!

You obviously possess the courage that so many of our creationist neighbours lack.....to face the facts!

Thanks.

It was an eye opener. In those days I was actually able to do fairly well in creation debates, arguing about the complexity of DNA code. When I was confronted with evidence for transitional mammal-like reptile fossils, I was not able to find what I wanted in secondary sources like Gould, so I went to the University of Pennsylvania library and found their journal archive. I soon discovered I was in it over my head with the paper I had come to read. It was filled with facts, and I was finding it hard to quote mine it for proof that this was all just guesses. I started to page through the volume in my hand, and this article was no fluke. Everywhere they were talking about specific facts, specific fossils, specific finds, specific dates, specific analysis, etc. I would never be the same after that epiphany. I would never argue for YEC again, switching instead to origin of life debates for a while. But a journey had begun, my mind was not going to stop, and I ended up far, far from my fundamentalist roots.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I had to chuckle a little bit...you shot yourself in the foot.

Your string of minor changes must be exact....see post 3. Secondly for an organism to evolve a simple system these exact minor changes must occur over and over again...which is impossible.

Evolutionism fails.

Who told you the DNA changes need to be exact? Scientists have known for a long time that DNA does not need to be exact.

Proteins consist of a long chain of amino acids. Based on what amino acids are where, the chain folds slightly differently with slightly different characteristics. There are many cases where there are similar proteins that have the same function in many different species, but there are a variety of different codes specifying variations in the proteins. It doesn't matter. Even with different codes, with slightly different proteins, the same functions happen.

That is what evolution is. Minor changes in the amino acid sequence usually make minor variations. But the minor variations get shuffled through the generations as mating occurs and DNA mixes, and if a particular trait is valued, the combinations that produce significant improvements become common.

 

[quatona]

One could easily argue that your "theory" is an argument from "incredulity". You see, you can't even begin to explain how the DNA codes for it...but you know it did it with out God. Right?

Whether evolution theory has it right and whether a God has designed this complex process of evolution are two completely distinct question.

 

[-57]

Who told you the DNA changes need to be exact? Scientists have known for a long time that DNA does not need to be exact.

Proteins consist of a long chain of amino acids. Based on what amino acids are where, the chain folds slightly differently with slightly different characteristics. There are many cases where there are similar proteins that have the same function in many different species, but there are a variety of different codes specifying variations in the proteins. It doesn't matter. Even with different codes, with slightly different proteins, the same functions happen.

That is what evolution is. Minor changes in the amino acid sequence usually make minor variations. But the minor variations get shuffled through the generations as mating occurs and DNA mixes, and if a particular trait is valued, the combinations that produce significant improvements become common.

You're describing a process that is impossible even for evolutionism. Once again post 3 shows why.
There would be the need for many "minor variations" as you put it to accumulate and evolve simultaneously dependent upon each other.
It's far more complicated than your coloring book answer...mutations happen and the one that improve are selected and passed along.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're describing a process that is impossible even for evolutionism. Once again post 3 shows why.

This has been explained to you multiple times.

Post 3 shows that the motor protein is complex. It does not show that it is too complex to have evolved.
Post 3 shows that the motor protein is complex. It does not show that it is too complex to have evolved.

Would you like me to repeat that a few more times for your benefit? If you disagree, please explain what in that video proves the motor protein was too complex to have evolved. You have not begun to try to do that.

There would be the need for many "minor variations" as you put it to accumulate and evolve simultaneously dependent upon each other.

You simply made that up? Why would the mutations have to evolve simultaneously? I have explained this to you in detail in the post you replyed to, and you simply ignored it. The changes can be made through many mutations over a long period of time, some neutral and some advantageous. After years of trial and error, new functions can be reached.

It's far more complicated than your coloring book answer...mutations happen and the one that improve are selected and passed along.

Coloring book answer! I posted a link to a peer reviewed article explaining the evolution of the motor protein Have you even read it? Please don't write off peer reviewed journal articles as coloring book explanations without even reading them.

And your feedback doesn't begin to address the detailed explanation I gave in the post you responded to. This is ridiculous, making us explain the same things over and over again while you ignore what we write.

 

[bhsmte]

You're describing a process that is impossible even for evolutionism. Once again post 3 shows why.
There would be the need for many "minor variations" as you put it to accumulate and evolve simultaneously dependent upon each other.
It's far more complicated than your coloring book answer...mutations happen and the one that improve are selected and passed along.

No, post 3 doesn't do what you claim it does. Or should I say, what you; really, really, really need to believe it does.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're describing a process that is impossible even for evolutionism. Once again post 3 shows why.
There would be the need for many "minor variations" as you put it to accumulate and evolve simultaneously dependent upon each other.
It's far more complicated than your coloring book answer...mutations happen and the one that improve are selected and passed along.

You keep confusing me when, in the evolution thread, you insist on talking about the origin of the universe, and in the origin of the universe thread, you insist that we talk about evolution. At any rate, you had hijacked the universe thread back to evolution, and I had responded to you there. Since this really applies to the evolution thread, I will copy it here.

-----------------------------------

Once again, a trip to see the scientific journals in a library would change your views.

Here is another link to the paper I had linked to earlier in this thread. It describes the evolution of the protein in the video in post 3. -- http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/4361097a?r3_referer=nature . In it you will read:

Richards and Cavalier-Smith (page 1113 of this issue) have performed a comprehensive analysis of the myosin superfamily of motor proteins across a wide sample of eukaryotes (organisms whose cells have nuclei, including plants and animals). The results provide insights into how myosins evolved and into the nature of the earliest common ancestor — the cenancestor— of eukaryotic cells.​

So if you really wanted insights into the nature of the evolution of the myosin motors, you could go to articles like that. The details are there, should you choose not to ignore them.

And here is a list of more articles on DNA and protein evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
​

 

[AV1611VET]

Pluto is a space rock.

Tombaugh's Folly?

 

[-57]

This has been explained to you multiple times.

Post 3 shows that the motor protein is complex. It does not show that it is too complex to have evolved.
Post 3 shows that the motor protein is complex. It does not show that it is too complex to have evolved.

Would you like me to repeat that a few more times for your benefit? If you disagree, please explain what in that video proves the motor protein was too complex to have evolved. You have not begun to try to do that.

You simply made that up? Why would the mutations have to evolve simultaneously? I have explained this to you in detail in the post you replyed to, and you simply ignored it. The changes can be made through many mutations over a long period of time, some neutral and some advantageous. After years of trial and error, new functions can be reached.

Coloring book answer! I posted a link to a peer reviewed article explaining the evolution of the motor protein Have you even read it? Please don't write off peer reviewed journal articles as coloring book explanations without even reading them.

And your feedback doesn't begin to address the detailed explanation I gave in the post you responded to. This is ridiculous, making us explain the same things over and over again while you ignore what we write.

Will you please stop with the nonsense. Your peer reviewed article didn't show how motor proteind evolved.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Will you please stop with the nonsense. Your peer reviewed article didn't show how motor proteind evolved.

Did you read the paper? The paper says it does.

 

[-57]

Did you read the paper? The paper says it does.

No it didn't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No it didn't.

Did you read the paper? The paper says it provides insights into how these motor proteins evolved. How do you know the paper doesn't say what it claims to say?

 

[-57]

Did you read the paper? The paper says it provides insights into how these motor proteins evolved. How do you know the paper doesn't say what it claims to say?

Like you...it made a claim. That's the sad part.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Like you...it made a claim. That's the sad part.

I saw the paper made a claim and was peer reviewed. When a paper claims to show something, and peers review it and confirm that the analysis is a worthy contribution to that branch of science, then I tend to trust what the peers say, and that the paper gives valid arguments for what it claims to argue.

I am not a molecular biologist. I could read it and comment on whether I agree with the analysis, but that isn't saying much. I don't know enough about it to evaluate if the claim is validly argued. But we know that this paper was verified by people that are qualified to make that decision. That is the point.

You, on the other hand, saw only a bit of it and determined somehow that it did not even say what it claims to say. You have no authority to say that, as far as I can tell. I have the authority of the peers who reviewed it.

 

[-57]

I saw the paper made a claim and was peer reviewed. When a paper claims to show something, and peers review it and confirm that the analysis is a worthy contribution to that branch of science, then I tend to trust what the peers say, and that the paper gives valid arguments for what it claims to argue.

I am not a molecular biologist. I could read it and comment on whether I agree with the analysis, but that isn't saying much. I don't know enough about it to evaluate if the claim is validly argued. But we know that this paper was verified by people that are qualified to make that decision. That is the point.

You, on the other hand, saw only a bit of it and determined somehow that it did not even say what it claims to say. You have no authority to say that, as far as I can tell. I have the authority of the peers who reviewed it.

If the papers did what you claimed they did....why not cut and paste that portion?
The problem for you is that you can't...and now must find a way to backpeddle and save face.

Right now you're hiding behind...it must be true because it's peer reviewed. Because it's peered reviewed it's gotta be in there.

You claimed it was there....so where is it?

 

[Radrook]

How would something like that evolve? Very slowly. Why exactly could this code not have evolved over millions of years?

Is that the conclusion you would reach if a code is detected by SETI? That it evolved?

 

[Mobezom]

That's different. There is no known means by which a signal could evolve. Life, on the other hand, can.

 

[Ophiolite]

Will you please stop with the nonsense. Your peer reviewed article didn't show how motor proteind evolved.

Is your point that while the paper proposes a means by which the proteins may have evolved it does not show that they did evolve in this way? If that is not your point would you please take a moment to expand your point so that it is clear to me.