A few tips for creationists.

consol said:

I concede, it would appear that creationism is about to take over the world, that's if it hasn't already.

So creationism wins again, let's hear it for creationism.

Click to expand...

Is this your concession that you can't answer Vene's questions about evolution posted in message 16?

Gracchus said:

I think some of you are just reacting to Consol out of habit. The OP in this thread was actually pretty decent.

Click to expand...

I for one wasn't reacting to the OP.

Vene said:

Hey, consol, care to define evolution? Can you name off a few transitional fossils? Care to tell me why Lenski's research is relevant? Can you tell me the difference between homology and convergent evolution using examples? Do you know the differences between DNA and RNA? Do you even know what DNA and RNA stand for? Do you know why a chromosome having two centromeres is important?

I can't even think of a post you made where you presented a shred of evidence or demonstrated knowledge of biology.

Click to expand...

Now that Kyrisch has spoilt it for consol, let me take the exam too

Evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population over time. That includes new mutations, selection and random drift.

A few transitional fossils? I'll come up with some that aren't mentioned in every second post here. Archaeosperma, a primitive seed plant from the Devonian. Westlothiana, a stem amniote first heralded as the first reptile. Pistosaurus, a Triassic marine reptile transitional between nothosaurs and plesiosaurs. The primitive feathers recently found in Early Cretaceous amber in France. And a lot more.

Lenski's research - I'm thinking you mean the great E. coli experiment that's been following the evolution of E. coli lineages from a common ancestor for what, 20 years now? Most recently they have demonstrated both the evolution of a major novelty (the ability to digest citrate) and the role of historical contingency. That is, the bacteria which originally gave rise to Cit+ descendants were much more likely to yield them again - so they had some "potentiating" mutation that made the ability easier to evolve.

IIRC Lenski was also on the team that demonstrated the evolution of irreducible complexity in simulated organisms under simple selective pressures. The digital organism work also highlighted the fact that harmful mutations aren't necessarily bad - some of them were actually needed to evolve the target IC logical function in certain populations.

Homology is common ancestry of a feature in two organisms. Homologous features may be superficially very different. Convergent features are superficially similar but evolved independently. Perhaps my favourite example is our and squid's eyes. On the deepest level they may well be homologous. IIRC both use the Pax6 gene to trigger eye development, as do other eyed creatures. This suggests that all eyes share a common ancestor (perhaps a bunch of light-sensitive cells on some ancient animal). However, even though human and squid eyes are superficially very similar, they have structural differences (eg. retina inverted in us and not in cephalopods) and, I've been told, the developmental pathways downstream from Pax6 are also different. So on the level of details they are convergent.

RNA (ribonucleic acid) and DNA (deoxyRNA) are pretty similar in basic structure but the differences are important. First, deoxyribose has a hydrogen instead of an -OH group on carbon 2'. The extra -OH group makes RNA more reactive than DNA (it spontaneously chops itself up, for example). I'm sure I've been taught why DNA forms a stable double helix and RNA doesn't but I can't recall. Anyway, RNA tends to be single-stranded, but bits of the same strand can base-pair with each other, leading to complicated secondary structures.

Both nucleic acids feature complementary base-pairing: in DNA, the two pairs are guanine-cytosine and adenine-thymine. RNA has uracil instead of thymine (or rather: DNA has thymine instead of uracil, as RNA likely came first), and is less strict about what pairs with what than DNA. Uracil has a disadvantage: cytosine spontaneously converts to it. Of course a repair enzyme couldn't tell if a particular uracil is original or mutated from cytosine, so this error is unrepairable and increases the mutation rate of RNA (or uracil-DNA) compared to DNA.

With regards to function, DNA is an information storage molecule, and that's about it. RNA, on the other hand, performs in storage (many viral genomes), transmission (messenger RNA) and conversion (transfer RNA) of information, as well as in catalysis (ribosomal RNAs, self-splicing introns and other ribozymes). RNA interference is implicated in gene regulation (microRNAs) and defence against viruses.

And finally, a chromosome with two centromeres smacks of chromosome fusion. Normal chromosomes have only one centromere. In particular, the (defunct) second centromere of human chromosome 2 confirms a prediction of common descent: if humans (with 23 chromosome pairs) and other great apes (with 24 chromosome pairs) share a common ancestor then one of the human chromosomes must have formed by the fusion of two ape chromosomes (an ape can't just lose a chromosome and survive).

Do I pass?

consol said:

Of course it is, I'm a creationists, didn't you know? what would I know abour evolution?

Click to expand...

Shall I facepalm.

USincognito, it's been spoilt anyway. But we can easily come up with a few more questions... let's see. And this time only consol answer please. I'd really like to see if he can.

What are ERVs and what's their significance to the crevo debate?

What is the scientific definition of micro- and macroevolution?

What are ring species and why are they important?

What kind of creature is the transitional fossil Kyrisch mentioned, Tiktaalik?

Why are vestigial features important? A few examples are also welcome.

Name a few cases of beneficial mutations.

I've seen each of these more than once in C&E, so they should be easy for such a regular as consol.

consol said:

I concede, it would appear that creationism is about to take over the world, that's if it hasn't already.

So creationism wins again, let's hear it for creationism.

Click to expand...

That's a bit black and white.
One moment Creationism is only in the UK, now it's taking over the world, you do love the doom and gloom (although I accept the humour it's posted in).

The point was more to show you that although the largest vocal section is currently in the US, creationism in general isn't a US only idea.
There are spots dotted all over Europe, marginally more so in the UK I think (http://www.creationism.co.uk/ -- actually, anti-creationism, but demonstrates there is enough of a situation in the UK to warrant such a movement).
As I understand there's a fair group in Australia as well (Ken Ham, one of the main Answers in Genesis guys is from there and set up a Creation group in Australia first. This article shows how they attempted to sue him shortly after he opened the creation "museum" in the US).

That's without going into the Islam anti-Creation movements that exist throughout the world as well.

But, they are largely minorities. Although I said I know a number of Creationists, most of the people I know are either athiest, apathetic or non-religious Christians.

consol said:

Of course it is, I'm a creationists, didn't you know? what would I know abour evolution?

Click to expand...

Considering that it was, twice now, an open book exam, and you have chosen to repsond with your usual vapid quips, we can only conclude that you don't really know anything about evolution and are only here to spew your bigotry and hatred against religious people.

It's ironic to see you standing there naked all the while screaming the Emperor has no clothes.

Naraoia said:

USincognito, it's been spoilt anyway. But we can easily come up with a few more questions... let's see. And this time only consol answer please. I'd really like to see if he can.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to hold my breath since he's had plenty of time (and help from both you and Kyrisch at this point) to answer Vene's questions and has chosen to continue with his usual MO, but your questions are excellent and lets see if he can answer them or not.

Please folks, these questions are for consol only.

consol said:

Of course it is, I'm a creationists, didn't you know? what would I know abour evolution?

Click to expand...

Consol, we aren't accusing you of being a creationist. We're accusing you of using their tactics for no good reason. We're accusing you of having no knowledge of the thing you hate. We're accusing you of being unable to address the science in a science subforum. Quite simply, you make the evolution side look bad with your ignorance.

consol, LOL

consol said:

I have never studied evolution.

Click to expand...

You have never studied evolution... and by prior admission, you've never studied religion either. So what the hell makes you think you're qualified to judge which is more valid? You're officially 100% worse than any creationist on this board... they've at least studied ONE of the subjects in discussion. Wow.

Let's say it does consol, then why are you posting here and not in general apologetics? All creationists may be religious, but not all the religious are creationists.

consol said:

I will admit that I know the answers to none of these questions,
I have never studied evolution, I have never read 'The Origin of Species',
I am an Atheist not an evolutionist, but I know that evolution makes more sense than religion,
and I can see for myself how evolution has worked, and is still working today, a will continue to work, as long as there's life,
you may not know how your car works, but you know that it does, and if you wanted to, you could find out,
if I told me there was a ghost inside it making it work, you could prove me wrong,
but when someone tells a child that a God made everything, there is no way the child can prove them wrong,
that's why I say creationism is dangerous and immoral, and serves no useful purpose, it just deadens the brain.

Click to expand...

Quoted to Demonstrate that Consol Has No Place In Crevo.

Bonus points for honesty, though.

I wouldn't say no place.
Just needs to do more lurking and learning than posting.

Mincus said:

I wouldn't say no place.
Just needs to do more lurking and learning than posting.

Click to expand...

Conceded

consol said:

One of the worst things you can possibly do is think about your religion, never think about it,
because if you start to think about it the next thing you know you will be analysing it,
and if you analyse it you will see it for what it really is, and it's best you don't know.

Learn as much as you can about evolution, because the more you know the more ammunition you will have,
then you can fight the evil evolutionists at their own game.

Stick to things that can not be proven either way, and always change your mind, it confuses them,
it's OK to make up weird and wonderful scenarios that can never be checked on,
and never worry about 'moving the goal posts', because who cares what they think anyway?

There is a lot more you can do to be a good creationist, but just remember, it doesn't come easy,
you will need to sacrifice quite a lot, and some people will still laugh at you, just stick with it,
in fact if they laugh at you, you will know you're doing it right.

Click to expand...

Again, Consol, it's a little late for advice like this --- as I have said many times before ---

AV1611VET - Now that is just disappointing coming from you.

You know better than to say that the Bible just arose in the 1611 KJV version. It was written in Greek and Hebrew first, then later translated into several other languages. I'm sure if you were able to travel back in time you would have gotten along just fine with the Bishop's Bible. Or, the one they used when the Mayflower sailed over - the Geneva Bible.