As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Speedwell]

but this is the problem- a single part will not work unless you have the other parts. so a single part will be useless in this case.

Right. That's why the parts of a system evolve together instead of separately. Why is that a problem?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but this is the problem- a single part will not work unless you have the other parts. so a single part will be useless in this case.

It's only a problem if you are ignorant of the fact that the individual parts can evolve while having a different function on their own then the function they take up in the more complex system they eventually become a part of.

 

[Speedwell]

It's only a problem if you are ignorant of the fact that the individual parts can evolve while having a different function on their own then the function they take up in the more complex system they eventually become a part of.

Or that the system as a whole had a different function than the function its components eventually evolve together to perform.

The evolution of functional complexity IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR EVOLUTION.

 

[xianghua]

In its most simplest form, a swinging door is just a plate with a simple hinge attached.
So, 1.

im talking about an automatic door that can be close by a motion system.

That's very easy to evolve if you keep in mind that every 1 part of the three can have a different function at first.

but it doesnt have. a single part of a motion system is useless by itself.

 

[Speedwell]

im talking about an automatic door that can be close by a motion system.




but it doesnt have. a single part of a motion system is useless by itself.

Only once evolves together with the other components to form the motion system.

 

[xianghua]

Only once evolves together with the other components to form the motion system.

but i just explained why its not realy possible because the low chance.

 

[Speedwell]

but i just explained why its not realy possible because the low chance.

Your "low chance" is based on the components evolving separately towards their final function which is is, indeed, almost impossibly unlikely. It also ignores the selection pressure that the components exert on each other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

im talking about an automatic door that can be close by a motion system.

Is this a self-replicating door by any chance?

I have no idea. I'll just shrug my shoulders and say "ONE THOUSAND PARTS!"
You may now make your fallacious argument to make some false equivalence point.

but it doesnt have. a single part of a motion system is useless by itself.

You being ignorant on the idea of repurposing of parts (which isn't even exclusive to evolutionary biology and which happens in engineering all the time....), is your problem.

 

[xianghua]

Is this a self-replicating door by any chance?

I have no idea. I'll just shrug my shoulders and say "ONE THOUSAND PARTS!"
You may now make your fallacious argument to make some false equivalence point.




You being ignorant on the idea of repurposing of parts (which isn't even exclusive to evolutionary biology and which happens in engineering all the time....), is your problem.

so what you will say in the case of convergent eovlution? remember that in this case we know what is the chance to get a specific function (again; about 10^77). so the chance to get again the same function is 10^77 by convergent evolution.

 

[tas8831]

"self-proclaimed"?? You have no idea who you are talking to, it seems.
Ow my.....



Errrr.....................
You're telling thousands, if not millions, of evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc... that they are wrong about the backbone theory of their field. And not just a little wrong, but completely wrong.

That is the way of the creationists lacking relevant education, knowledge or experience in any relevant science. The Dunning-Kruger effect clouds their judgement.

 

[tas8831]

It's not lame... Jesus quoted and must have read Genesis. Matthew 19:4-5

Can you provide definitive corroboration for the claims in Mark that the sky went dark for three hours when Jesus died on the cross?

That was supposed to have happened but a few thousand years ago, when there were all kinds of sophisticated human cultures all around the world, most with systems of writing and social hierarchies that were interested in recording events and such.

Surely it would be far, far easier for the Christian to present reams of verifiable, valid, corroborated evidence for such events being observed and recorded around the world, or at least in the middle east and adjoining areas where such events would have to have been observed as opposed to finding some specific set of fossils from millions of years ago?

 

[tas8831]

Micro Evolution - Yes, in the form of genetic parameters designed by God for adaptation and survival.

What is your evidence that God exists, much less "designed" anything genetic? And what is your evidence for the existence of "genetic parameters"?

Macro Evolution - No, the biggest orchestrated hoax ever pulled on mankind. Universal descent from a common ancestor is only speculation passed off as scientific fact, and there is no evidence of one kind changing into another kind in the fossil record.[/QUOTE]
If it is a hoax and speculation, is is the only hoax that actually has a great deal of evidence from multiple fields of science.

Odd for someone with a moniker such as yours that you seem bound and determined to actually NOT inquire, at all, regarding this issue. You prefer to play games and pontificate, nothing more.

 

[tas8831]

They are willingly deceived, accepting scientific speculation above God's word.

What is your evidence that your deity even exists?

Talk about willingly deceived!

 

[tas8831]

Valid science is determined by valid scientists... with evidence, not speculation.

Evidence like the material you have systematically ignored?

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."


I think when I presented this to you before, you prattled on about fossils.

Yet when I replied with this, you ignored that, too:

Can you provide definitive corroboration for the claims in Mark that the sky went dark for three hours when Jesus died on the cross?

That was supposed to have happened but a few thousand years ago, when there were all kinds of sophisticated human cultures all around the world, most with systems of writing and social hierarchies that were interested in recording events and such.

Surely it would be far, far easier for the Christian to present reams of verifiable, valid, corroborated evidence for such events being observed and recorded around the world, or at least in the middle east and adjoining areas where such events would have to have been observed as opposed to finding some specific set of fossils from millions of years ago?

This is why I ask creationists who think they have some kind of brilliant argument about fossils how much they actually understand about the topic.

Do you know under what conditions fossils can form? Do you know how prevalent such conditions are? It seems not.

 

[tas8831]

Do you know what that means though?

(I noticed you've avoided my other questions.)

Avoiding questions is this one's favorite antic, it seems. That and pontificating and obfuscating.

 

[tas8831]

Except of course that we were created by God. When they consider that... we can talk reasonable.

What is to consider?

You seem immune to supporting your fallacy of begging the question.

 

[tas8831]

If you're speaking of macro evolution there will never be any proof of it; it would contradict God's word, and that's not going to happen.

"Inquiring mind"?

More like "Slammed shut, locked up, super-duper CLOSED mind"...

Doing the Kenny Ham shuffle is not a way to make people think that you are serious about anything. How sad that you put the rantings of numerologists and mystics from the ancient middle east above your own supposed intelligence.

 

[tas8831]

When they have to appeal to a massive, world-wide conspiracy encompassing literally millions of scientists, then they have already lost the argument and aren't worthy of serious consideration.

Also worth noting, that the people who make the "hoax" claim can never actually discuss the science.

Just a coincidence, I guess...
You have to wonder about the mental gymnastics such folk have to put themselves through on a daily basis to keep such crazy beliefs alive.

 

[tas8831]

micro is the change in traits in a species over time ie going from having a flat nose to a pointy nose or shorter people to taller people.

macro is going from one species to another species like a rhino turning into a bunny over time.

there has been no evidence or examples of the latter.

Why do you even think that evolution from a rhino to a bunny is a thing?

 

[tas8831]

And I've seen this over and over again... charges of ignorance or lack of understanding when scientific speculation isn't accepted.

No, you see charges of ignorance or lack of understanding when you declare any evidence presented to you IS 'speculation' for the purpose of propping up your ancient middle eastern beliefs.

Then followed by more conjecture and inferring instead of accepting God's word Genesis 1:26-27. Science is a wonderful thing until it's used to usurp God's glory.

So you are just preaching in the "God said it, I believe it, and thats that" hillbilly sort of mentality. So why the pretense to intellectualism? "associate with those you can learn from" - should probably read "associate with those that will reinforce your ancient middle eastern numerologist beliefs".