Define 'species'

[Ondoher]

Pedantic satire and all the gene swaping does not write new genetic code. The universal common ancestor model need not be refuted anyway, it's never been demonstrated.

How to add new information to a genome:
A->AA->AB

This is also called duplication and divergence.

Common ancestry is the best explanation for the twin nested hierarchies of life.

 

[yossarian]

Pedantic satire and all the gene swaping does not write new genetic code. The universal common ancestor model need not be refuted anyway, it's never been demonstrated.

can you find any organism at all which does not fit into an rRNA phylogeny mark?

can you provide any methodology that gives plausible reasons for chopping up such a phylogeny into multiple ancestors?

your criticism of universal common descent is notably absent of any real alternative classification system

 

[h2whoa]

What these geneticists are saying is that the mutations are very difficult to find even in the most simple of organisms. A variation in the gene pool is just that, a random combination that does not change the gene load one iota. A mutation in order to create an alltoghter new creature like vertabras must rewrite the genetic code and this must be accounted for with a demonstrated mechanism.

But Mark, I am a geneticist and what you say here is simply not true. Mutations are not hard to find at all. Mutation can and does change the gene load (however you interpret that). There is no single mutation that would create vertebrates from invertebrates. It's a cumulative effect, so your argument here is, at best, fallacious. In fact, see my signature line.

h2

 

[mark kennedy]

[/font]

But Mark, I am a geneticist and what you say here is simply not true. Mutations are not hard to find at all. Mutation can and does change the gene load (however you interpret that). There is no single mutation that would create vertebrates from invertebrates. It's a cumulative effect, so your argument here is, at best, fallacious. In fact, see my signature line.

h2

"Adaptive mutations in E. coli
Advantageous mutations lead to a higher fitness and hence per definition to more offspring of their bearer. Because of their pivotal role in adaptation processes there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Unfortunately, these positive mutations are rare and thus difficult to study. We have developed a new marker system, which allows us to systematically study beneficial mutations in E. coli."

Marianne C. Imhof, Ph.D.

First of all I did not make this up I am simply relating what I have found while looking around for substantive proof that beneficial mutations as the driving force of evolution. One of the other problems with this is that mutations are more often of no effect at all or damage the organisms. I found this definition and it was simular to many others that I have encountered.

“Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to progeny and somatic mutations, which often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer. Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (or beneficial) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as punctuated equilibrium; the modern interpretation of classic evolutionary theory. It should be noted that, contrary to science fiction, the overwhelming majority of mutations have no real effect.”

Definition of mutation

These accumulated mutations result in the hopefull monster that Darwin described as a monstrocity and the punctuated equilibrium is still shunned by neodarwinism. Notice that the neutral mutations are accumulated and then suddenly there is the 'hopefull monster' of punctuated equilibrium, who initially would have a very slight selective advantage over others within the same species. Neutral mutations accumulating to form an altogether new species is something of a stretch since it must produce fertile offspring.

My point originally and all along has been that there is a big difference between the random variation of an existing gene pool and a change in the DNA sequence. In the event that a mutation is passed on in is most often deletreous or harmfull and while the occasional beneficial mutation occures this is hardly a ubiquitous principle that can be the mechanism that changes living systems into altogether new creatures.

I mentioned briefly that the Cambrian explosion was where we see all the major animal classes and phyla appear rather suddenly in the geologic strata. One of the most signifigant developments would be the emegance of vertabras during this period. If it was Choanoflagellates, or something like this, then by now we should be able to identify what happens to them to develop both skeletons but the vast internal organs and the metabolism that marks the more evolved versions. Mutations simply can't account for this and represent anecdotal evidence that does not provide a demonstrative mechanism.

I am curious though what you think of the Preinannan Senapathy approach to genome sequencing. It would be interesting to see what you make of this.

Dr. Periannan Senapathy

 

[mark kennedy]

So I was right. You never questioned the Bible as I did. I had to. Even as a very young boy, everything I found in the Bible violated all logic. Why there ever needed to be a resurrection in the first place didn't make any sense. God couldn't forgive us for something he did until we killed his son. What? If you incorporate the Genesis fable into this, then God cursed us for doing something good, for choosing wisdom; and won't forgive us for that until we prove we don't really have any wisdom. We earn forgiveness only by doing something really bad. God killed himself to save us from himself? What? What happened to unconditional love and forgiveness? The way the Bible portrays God, he never forgives anything without some terrible condition being met first, and its usually a stupid one.

Are you really trying to say that you seriously thought about this before rejecting the Bible? The ressurection does relate to Genesis in the sense that the power of God raised Christ from the dead. What is more the knowledge of good and evil is never said to be the only source of wisdom, this is never implied in any way. I don't really know why you are jumping to conclusions about the cross and failing to recognize that the ressurection is central to redemptive history in Christian theism. The point was allways about how you discern the historicity of an event and the New Testament has met every burden of proof that has been applied to it. I gave you the criteria that is used to this day to determine whether or not a document and a testimony is valid as evidence. I was interested in the actaull evidence for the Christian faith well before becoming a Christian and for the last 20 years. I have found none of the weapons in the skeptics arsonal to even put a dent in Christian apologetics.

That and the fact that no historian or astronomer anywhere on Earth could remember any hours of daytime darkness was another indication that the "witness" was unreliable to say the least. When zombies rise out of their graves and dance the Thriller in downtown Judea, you would expect someone else to mention that somewhere. Yet the gospels, (all suspisciously composed decades after the alleged fact) are the only source you'll ever find of this event. There is nothing to corroberate anything in the entirety of the Bible, Old Testament or New. And all the stories of Jesus are (as I said) almost exact copies of the earlier myths of neighboring cultures. It occurs to me that since all these other gods came first, that either Dionysus really could turn water into wine, or if he couldn't, if that was just a myth, then Jesus couldn't really do it either, and is probably just a myth too.

There are corroberating accounts of Christian events and I really don't know what it is you are getting at with the zombie and astronomer satire. There is not another writting from antiquity that can merit the reliability of the New Testament as history. The bibliographical testing alone is far and away the most telling proof and it is no supprise that skeptics ignore this as evidence.

Then there are the many contradictions, like Judas dying two different ways, which couldn't both have been done at the same time; one where he spends his money, and one where he returned it to the pharisees and they spend the money, and both of them supposedly baught the same land with the same cash.

What you are running into are problems with the translations. Judas threw the money on the floor of the Temple and went and hanged himself. He had to be cut down and that is when his bowls broke forth. The Priests and others there when the money was gathered from the floor descided that since it was blood money that it could not be returned to the treasury so they purchased a potters field. Judas only bought the feild in a matter of speaking and this supposed internal contradiction is easily reconciled to the overall account.

Then there are the logical absurdities like the ability to see all the kingdoms of the Earth from a high mountain or a tree. And the fact that none of the miracles can be explained even by any hypothetical means. Why would this all-powerful being need to run and hide when someone wants to throw a rock at him?

What could you possibly be refering to here? The miracles while inexplicable are not outside the realm of evidence and the central miracle is the ressurection. Seeing things from a high mountain or a tree, people thowing rocks at God, God hiding from would be rock throwers...more satire.

Can't the creator of "the word" communicate his point any more effectively than that? And why this system of judgement where the only attribute worthy of salvation is gullability? Good works are like filthy rags to God, and no one, not even Ghandi, could ever save themselves from Jesus' personal torture chamber unless they believe something totally preposterous for literally no reason at all, and maintain that delusion against all reason. This is not the way of any superior being, much less a supreme one. These are the claims of someone trying to use fear to gain power for himself. These are the lies of the priests, and nothing more.

I can only assume from the disjointed diatribe that you are refering to the reality of Hell as a possible outcome at final judgment. Jesus was the only one to actaully elaborate on the reality of Hell since he was most likely the only one who knew anything about it. If you eye causes you to sin pluck it out and throw it away, better to lose one of you're members then to have you're whole body cast into Hell. Now if that is what you are refering to then we can discuss the actuall chapter, verse and context. On the other hand there is no amount of evidence that can satisfy the skeptic.


"Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape."

(Simon Greeleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)

But none of that has anything whatsoever to do with creationism or rejecting physical evidence. That was the question I asked, and you still haven't answered it.

That is not what you asked, you asked how I came to believe what I do and why should you believe anything I say. I have answered you're question endlessly but you allways manage to dismiss my response with satirical rethoric.

Nothing should ever be beyond skepticism, and that includes the Bible.
You think science itself is a flawed philosophy. All Christians believe in your supposed "witness" in the New Testament. But most of them reject literal translations of the Old Testament because there's no way that can be true. I want to know why you think it is.

I never said that science was a flawed philosophy and have tried a number of times to distinquish the universal common ancestor model of real natural science. As a matter of fact science is not really a philosophy even though there are various philosophies of science. Criticisms of the tree of life model Darwin made so popular and the various other evolutionary concepts are just that, concepts. They are readily discernable from science itself.

Also the "central tenets" of evolution are that organisms reproduce more young than can possibly survive, there is variation in all the young, and the best-adapted ones will preferentially survive and thrive well enough to pass those genes down to even more successful offspring, causing an allelic variance which leads to increased biodiversity, speciation, and many levels beyond. This is even according to your own words. Since we already know that each of these are definitely true, how do you imagine any of it to be philisophical? Things that can measured and tested this way aren't philosophies. Also, you've still never even attempted to explain what this alleged flaw is?

I did respond to this at length and addressed the statements of two of the leading thinkers in evolutionary thought in the last century. I have also went to some trouble to point out that there is a difference in the random variations that result in changes in the species and the rewriting of DNA producing not only a new species but a completly different class of animal. The contention that I failed to address these two points is baseless.

Nope. Never happened, and there was no elaboration either. I'm still waiting for an answer to that one. The only answer appears to be that you just believed the first thing you were told and were never able to question that. I still don't know how someone can do that the way you evidently did.

I don't care how many times you say this I have addressed every point you made. Now while I dismissed the taxonomic arguments that does not mean that it was not answered. By you're own rule I may dismiss a question and at long last I find that this one was never a serious question in the first place just a bait and switch tactic.
.

 

[mark kennedy]

When I was eleven or twelve years old, I too was told to believe the Bible was the "absolute truth", but I couldn't continue to believe that once I read it. I didn't get very far before I threw it across the room in disgust because the God I was lead to believe in couldn't have been involved in all that petty, shallow, sexist, racist, cruelty, stupidity and evil. This was not the word of God. These were obviously the words of base savages trying to justify their atrocities against their fellow man. And even if the gospels were true, Genesis still couldn't be for a great many reasons, the least of which being that it couldn't explain why we were apes. I want to know how you managed to read it backwards and get the opposite impression? Maybe if you had read it forward, like I did, then you would see my point?

Talk about making up you're mind before examining the evidence. I think I may have been fortunate in that I really didn't know very many religious people when I was a child and until I was about 18 never got any further in Genesis then the begats. I simply read the Gospels, Acts and did a little cross referencing with the Psalms and had an interest in the other wisdom literature. I admit that I was really shocked when I finally got around to Judges, what a bizzare accumulation of events. What is more, to this day I have a very hard time understanding the prophets since they talk in highly metaphorical terms.

Upon receiving Christ the Scriptures, especially the Psalms. opened up to me. It was startling to me to find the cross depicted so graphically and I was further supprised to find that there was allready a field of study devoted to Messianic prophecy and firmly established in the New Testament. It was around that time that I happened upon Foxes Book of Martyrs. I had heard that the Inquisition and the Salem Witch hunts were based on religious fanaticism but this was never the case. They were both exclusivly secular are allways about accumulating political power and seizing the wealth of the accused. Fox describes the Inquistion at length and it was only stopped by the Protestant Reformation and the advent of common law and the rights of the accused.

Not quite. I told you, I needed the taxonomic questions as a starting point, and that follow-up discussions would have to be based on those answers. You never permitted follow-up discussions, either because you conceded the proposed relationships were in fact true already, or because you refused to correct you mislabled hominid questions in any way that could make sense.

The larger question of how these catagories represent demonstrative proof has never been addressed. I didn't bother with the follow up questions since every attempt was considered non-responsive and the dozens of terms were never defined. I then did a little research and found that nothing is ever defined and the whole thing is designed around a referencing system not unlike the Dewey Decimal System. I did discuss the Homo Habilis fossils a little but the follow up questions were such a convoluted mess and the posts were virtually endless and laced with personal remarks. I had hoped that we would get into the substantive evidence at some point and I'm still waiting.

I in fact answered all the relevant questions and we never had a serious difference of opinion as to many of the central terms; natural selection, species, evolution...etc. I did all that I could to point out the flaws in the philosophy of science that Darwin made so popular and pointed out that this is all conceptual. There are still only two explanations that exaust our possible origins and the various sub-catagories of evolution are dead ends. Homology has at it's central point of emphasis a flawed logic and a strongly antitheistic premise. There is no discernable difference in micro and macoevolution and the terms you elaborate endlessly has the same ambiquity. What is more there should be a discernable difference between a damaged DNA stand and a random variation of the existing gene pool. When you were faced with the fact that mutations are rare and most often neutral or damgeing you abondoned the debate.

Nope. You were supposed to present an argument to show why they were speculative. You never did that because you didn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about. I didn't realize until then just how little you knew about taxonomy. But now that I have explained it in message #425, you must certainly now realize that there's hardly any speculation involved. You were never warranted in refusing my questions, and in fact, you even admitted an agreement with me that if creationism was true of anything at all, or if evolution from common ancestry was fundamentally mistaken, that flaw had to be found in taxonomy, because if it wasn't there, it simply couldn't be anywhere else. You dodged my questions, sir.

I never did anything of the sort. The taxonomic questions were based on a labyrinth of terms that you never bothered to define, I simply found out that they were never meant to be. If the taxonomic terms were a hard science then they would not be in a perpetual state of flux. I knew this was bogus when you rejected my statement that hominid fossils were rare. When I cited my source you simply said that the material was outdated and quoted a general disclaimer at the beggining of the textbook that in effect said that most of what was contained in those pages were subject to revision. Then we went into a lengthy discussion on the merits of taxonomics and discussed the termonology in a general way. I would have loved to have spent some time on the actual fossil evidence but there was only one transitional fossil discussed at any length and upon finding one discrepancy you did you're little victory dance and abandoned the debate.

Yes it is true. I asked about the lineages of several other animals, and offered the human-related questions as a bonus to compare them to. The bonus questions were the only ones you answered. So I had to come back in a later post and demand that you answer the prerequisite questions so we could get started. That's also when I pointed out that none of your hominid answers were right even by your own standards. But you dodged them all again, refusing to make any corrections at all. Enough said?

First of all the hominid questions were so general that a yes and no response was all that was required. Then you said, no we have to discuss felids and a host of other taxonomic verbage that left an enormous mess. When you finally brought up the hominid questions again I began by discussing the Leaky find and various other points of interest. You again plunged into the taxanomic verbage that led me a merry chase through a labyrinth of verbage that is highly subjective by the various definitions and discussions of taxonomonic relations that I cited repetedly...no substantive reply was ever offered.

Which is brought about by mutation. for example, the ancient stegocephalian fish, Eliginerpeton, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, all had too many toes on their fin/feet. Now we have only five. But the gene for six fingers in humans is still dominant, believe it or not.
Which is what a transition is.

You have a lost digit, nothing more. I never contended that mutations do not happen in the anecdotal evidence is actuall quite interesting. I did follow up with a couple of searches that yeilded what I had previously experienced and have come to expect. When certain taxa are identified as simular then the catagorization becomes a geneology. There was no real reason to pursue this since these little puzzles rarely yeild any concrete evidence. I suppose it is time to work of a thread that addresses the fossils and the piecemeal forensics that presuppose a Darwinian descent with modification. Notice that the list of terms are never associated with the actaul evidence. This has become the party line for evolution and it's generally based of anecdotal evidence. In short the question was never qualified and therefore was dismissed along with the other rationalizations from taxonomic verbage.

LOL You dismissed them all at once, out-of-hand, with a single thoughtless comment, one which was wrong by the way.
Then go back and read that post with your eyes open this time, and you will see it. Just what do you think would be required of any of these to constitute an evolutionary change?
Except that there are even more specific examples of beneficial mutations and the concerted opinion of noted scientists cited in these same posts. Methinks thou art in denial.
This was your last chance to retract that error. Because the explanation and questions I posted in message #425 solidly disprove your whole accusation here where they apply to taxonomy. But as for evolution, evolution is an objectively testable explanation of observed facts, and is therefore not philisophical.
The unavoidable conclusion is that evolution is definitely empiricle. [/size][/font][/size][/font]

We are talking about two different things, I never rejected evolution because the definition would make everyone an evolutionist. The primary issue is our origins and just becuase something is classified along with fish, apes, or reptiles does not make them any of those thing based on a subjective classification system that presupposes lines of descent. The water here is muddy and the reasoning is circular. The is a philosophical premise in the tree of life catagorizations and denying this is to reject evolution as a philosophy of science. This was never how the modern sythesis approach this subject since it included subjective objective duality and applied it to modern biology. I may have missed a couple of the pages mentioned but I'll be writting my summary for the formal debate shortly and when I am done I'll check the rest of the thread to see what I missed

 

[yossarian]

These accumulated mutations result in the hopefull monster that Darwin described as a monstrocity and the punctuated equilibrium is still shunned by neodarwinism. Notice that the neutral mutations are accumulated and then suddenly there is the 'hopefull monster' of punctuated equilibrium, who initially would have a very slight selective advantage over others within the same species. Neutral mutations accumulating to form an altogether new species is something of a stretch since it must produce fertile offspring.

this doesn't make much sense

My point originally and all along has been that there is a big difference between the random variation of an existing gene pool and a change in the DNA sequence. In the event that a mutation is passed on in is most often deletreous or harmfull and while the occasional beneficial mutation occures this is hardly a ubiquitous principle that can be the mechanism that changes living systems into altogether new creatures.

there is no difference, the existing variation in a gene pool is the result of mutation ("permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material")

a deleterious or harmful mutation is most often not passed on (beyond a single generation), because of natural selection

I mentioned briefly that the Cambrian explosion was where we see all the major animal classes and phyla appear rather suddenly in the geologic strata. One of the most signifigant developments would be the emegance of vertabras during this period. If it was Choanoflagellates, or something like this, then by now we should be able to identify what happens to them to develop both skeletons but the vast internal organs and the metabolism that marks the more evolved versions. Mutations simply can't account for this and represent anecdotal evidence that does not provide a demonstrative mechanism.

you haven't a clue whether they can or they can't mark

Homology has at it's central point of emphasis a flawed logic and a strongly antitheistic premise. There is no discernable difference in micro and macoevolution and the terms you elaborate endlessly has the same ambiquity. What is more there should be a discernable difference between a damaged DNA stand and a random variation of the existing gene pool. When you were faced with the fact that mutations are rare and most often neutral or damgeing you abondoned the debate.

you are severely muddled in the head regarding evolution and mutations
the variation in the existing gene pool is "damaged" DNA

you haven't demonstrated what relevance mutation rates and their phenotypic impact have to your argument

You have a lost digit, nothing more. I never contended that mutations do not happen in the anecdotal evidence is actuall quite interesting. I did follow up with a couple of searches that yeilded what I had previously experienced and have come to expect. When certain taxa are identified as simular then the catagorization becomes a geneology. There was no real reason to pursue this since these little puzzles rarely yeild any concrete evidence. I suppose it is time to work of a thread that addresses the fossils and the piecemeal forensics that presuppose a Darwinian descent with modification. Notice that the list of terms are never associated with the actaul evidence. This has become the party line for evolution and it's generally based of anecdotal evidence. In short the question was never qualified and therefore was dismissed along with the other rationalizations from taxonomic verbage.

you're great at taking several sentences to say absolutely nothing

We are talking about two different things, I never rejected evolution because the definition would make everyone an evolutionist. The primary issue is our origins and just becuase something is classified along with fish, apes, or reptiles does not make them any of those thing based on a subjective classification system that presupposes lines of descent. The water here is muddy and the reasoning is circular. The is a philosophical premise in the tree of life catagorizations and denying this is to reject evolution as a philosophy of science. This was never how the modern sythesis approach this subject since it included subjective objective duality and applied it to modern biology. I may have missed a couple of the pages mentioned but I'll be writting my summary for the formal debate shortly and when I am done I'll check the rest of the thread to see what I missed

homology is not a circular argument
its a principle used in paternity testing

 

[h2whoa]

"Adaptive mutations in E. coli
Advantageous mutations lead to a higher fitness and hence per definition to more offspring of their bearer. Because of their pivotal role in adaptation processes there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Unfortunately, these positive mutations are rare and thus difficult to study. We have developed a new marker system, which allows us to systematically study beneficial mutations in E. coli."

Marianne C. Imhof, Ph.D.

I note that you left out the rest of this statement:

"Long-term experiments demonstrated that several beneficial mutations occur during the propagation of E. coli. Our highly polymorphic, microsatellite based marker system allows the discrimination of different allelic lineages in a growing bacterial culture. The microsatellite marker mutates during the propagation of the culture leading to high allelic diversity in the E. coli population. Once a beneficial mutation arises, it will spread through the population. This spread results in a simultaneous spread of a given microsatellite allele associated to the cell carrying the advantageous mutation. Hence, the occurrence of a beneficial mutation can be detected by a temporary fixation of one microsatellite allele. The advantage of the use of our marker system is that we can identify the cell bearing the beneficial mutation as well as the time point when the beneficial mutation spreads through the population. "

Clearly even in this short abstract of this scientist's work your case that adaptive mutations do not occur falls down. In true Creationist style though you present a quote as the Truth but not the Whole Truth. Also another way to show that adaptive mutations are not that uncommon is in the sheer adaptive power that microbes show.

As well as being a geneticist, I have spent time in the microbiology labs for Unilever. Certain strains of bacteria can grow in a wide range of hostile environments that other strains of the same species can't. This is as a direct result of selective pressure and adaptive mutation. Another example is antibiotic resistance. You grow a culture of bacteria on an agar plate with, say, ampicillin, and the majority of cells will die. However isolated colonies will grow. This is again due to mutation affecting the metabolic sites that ampicillin attacks thus allowing these few colonies to grow unaffected.

One of the other problems with this is that mutations are more often of no effect at all or damage the organisms.

Mark, nobody denies this. That is why mutation alone doesn't account for evolution. Natural selection is the other BIG aspect. True, if the environment is unchanging most mutations will either be selected against and disappear or have no reproductive consequence and just pass inconsequentially into the gene pool. However organisms do not just choose to evolve. It's not a concious decision, "Right I've had enough of this, I'm going to evolve into something else". A selective pressure tips the balance and either adaptation has to take place or the organism dies. Look at the bacterial example. Normally there would be no ampicillin present and a mutation in the metabolic pathway affected by ampicillin would be ultimately deleterious and reduce relative fitness. However, once the environment has been changed, so that the plate is laced with ampicillin, those that don't carry the mutation(s) are suddenly selected against because they are totally vulnerable to the antibiotic. Although those that carry the mutation may not be as fit as the original wild type, under original conditions, they are now by far the fittest organism.

All that is just to show adaptive mutation in microbes.

In the event that a mutation is passed on in is most often deletreous or harmfull and while the occasional beneficial mutation occures this is hardly a ubiquitous principle that can be the mechanism that changes living systems into altogether new creatures.

*sigh* No Mark, wrong again. If a mutation is passed on it is more often neutral than deleterious (check your spelling on this btw). As discussed above, and in fact stated in the definition of mutation you provided (thanks for that by the way, somehow I'd managed to get my Genetics undergrad degree and be working for my PhD and yet never knew what a mutation was), most mutations are neutral. They can either be silent, having no phenotypic effect, or neutral resulting in a small phenotypic change but having no impact on fitness. Most mutations that are severely deleterious will not be passed on because of the loss of fitness.

Admitedly this is a little different for people these days because medical care has (thanks to those evil God-denying scientists, eh?) progressed to a stage where a lot of conditions can be treated to improve life.

h2

 

[JAL]

Are you now going to argue that the Earth was once the only thing in the entire universe? That the billions of other stars in our galaxy, as well as all the billions of other galaxies, -were all created after our puny little planet? Or that there were plants on Earth before the sun, or any of the other celestial bodies even existed? Can snakes talk, Mark? Do you really intend to argue for a giant crystal firmament with windows in it?

I do. That's my position, currently, since I hold to a literal reading of Genesis (and an old earth). But I think you might be misreading Genesis at one point although I'm not sure. Genesis is answering a question in the readers' minds, namely, what is the origin of all that we see? Thus we cannot assume that Genesis tells us about the creation of the whole universe, since we cannot see the whole universe. Moses' most immediate concern of highest priority is the portion of the universe visible to humans. Genesis opens thus, "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." The "heavens" here could refer to either (a) the whole universe or (b) the visible portion. I doubt that this question is critical. More critical is the question as to precisley what are "the stars" created several verses later. This probably does NOT refer to the whole universe (since the heavens were already created in verse 1). More likely it refers to those stars ordinarily visible to humans. Thus when I read Genesis, I don't think it's necessarily stating that our earth and galaxy were the first ones in the universe. You seem to feel otherwise. If you feel that your reading is more literal, please explain why. This would help me in my pursuit of a literal reading of Gensesis. I feel that God seems to stir me to prefer a literal reading (although I am not entirely sure that He does). Anyone else have opinions as to what is the literal reading?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Oh but I do understand, and you have said yourself that it doesn't matter how you define the terms.

Thank you! That's why it can't be semantics.

I don't know where you get that I am calling you a liar but that is something that only you have to rationalize. True to form you started off with a personal attack, why am I not supprised.

You started off with the personal attack, just as you usually do. I'm just responding to it. Don't you remember when you said this?

I specifically call you a liar. I in turn accuse you of calling me names.

So, you think I'm rationalizing, do you? I think you made your message pretty clear.

I do have precise definitions for everything, but you rejected all of those definitions (without reason). That's why I had to demonstrate this to you some other way. That's when you started pretending that I hadn't really defined anything, and you wrote everything off as semantics again.

Because that's all it has ever been with you, semantics.

When I say it can't be semantics, I explain why it can't be. But you just ignore that and go on asserting that it is, unable to explain why it is.

"Semantics"
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Now once again, contrary to the definition above, I'm using multiple words with the same meaning, not visa versa. That and it really doesn't matter which terms you use to recognize any of these groups. Because a rose, by any other name, would still be Magnoliophyta, (a flowering plant). And even that doesn't matter because I'm not asking you to adhere to my terms of recognition. Only that you be able to understand them, and be able to answer simple yes or no questions about whether or not this group, (group: A, or whatever) is related to that one, (group 2:65, for example). If you want to present some alternative recognition of these groups, or a modified variant of similar groups, go ahead and present your case. It doesn't matter however you choose to recognize them groups so long as you can define and explain their relationships. That's the central issue, and that definitely ain't semantics. All your whining that it is looks to me like a very obvious attempt to evade these oh-so-simple, straightforward questions.

You didn't demonstrate anything other then the ability to rationalize endlessly.

There's another example of the pot calling the silverware black. I have never yet rationalized anything. But you've done that almost constantly since this conversation began. That's why we need moderators. Otherwise, you'll just accuse me of everything you're doing, hoping to reduce this conversation down to the playground level. I seriously think you just giggle at your ability to say things that you know have neither substance nor merit, but are only valuable in taunting your opponant with nonsense. From the beginning of our debate, that seemed to be the only talent you had in this area. And unfortunately for you, that talent is wasted on me.

I am really not into the personal remarks,

Then stop making them. Show some honest, intellectual integrity. Stop using such instagative quips, and deal with the arguments themselves, like you promised you would.

The meaning of all the terms I provided were truth, so I don't know why you rejected them. I am still not a liar no matter how many times you call me that name. And taxonomy is a demonstrative science that is utterly independant of semantics.

That is not where that comes from

What(?) is not what what(?) comes from?

Taxonomy is in a state of flux and it can hardly be considered a science especially when it cannot define the central terms being used.

But you don't even know what the central term is! You still think its 'species'. I've been trying to tell you, its not. In taxonomy, any specific group of organisms (at any level) are referred to as 'taxa'. That is the central term. It can be a sub-species, species, genus, or even family, order, or class; 'higher' taxa. So how you define "species" just doesn't matter until you get to that level. Taxonomy is a legitimate science no matter how much you don't/won't understand about it. That's what I'm trying to show you with these questions you seem determined not to answer.

And by the way, all science is in a state of flux at some level and to some degree, even by your own admission earlier. But the relationships I'm trying to show you now are not in flux, as you would see if you would just answer them.

Now, can you tell the difference between these two taxonomic domains? Or do you still think its just semantics?

I know that it is just semantics and I quess you're question would depend on the taxonomic domain, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't. There are only two of them. Can you tell them apart or not? Yes or no? No semantics necessary. The only reason you keep bringing up that term is because you can't understand what any of these words mean, even after they've been explained to you, and won't bother to keep up by looking any of these up for yourself, even when links to do so are provided. And you've just danced around a simple, straight-forward question without answering it, as if you knew you didn't understand it....again.

If all of the one group contains internal nuclei and organelles where none of the other group does, then is this demonstrable? Or is it just another subjective opinion? I'm interested in hearing your answer though I doubt you'll want to answer this.

You are interested in hearing my answer to what?

Read the question again. And answer it this time, because you just dodged another one.

How these unicellular organisms are grouped together as a matter of semantics tell us less then nothing about how the human race came to be. What is even more interesting is that these cells have not changed over time but lets see where you go with this.

Well, they evidently have. But what is infinitely more interesting is that we're not just talking about unicellular organisms here. You are a multicellular organism, and all your cells are of one type or the other. So, are you a eukaryote? Or a prokaryote?

What all this tells us is that man is like any other animal in the biosphere in all the same fundamental ways. Pretty much what Ecclesiastes said.

The members of the animal kingdom are determined by their unique cellular structure. Whether you call them animals or metazoans, this fact does not change, so it can't be semantics. But even if it was, isn't it still demonstrably true? If it is, then it is empirical. If it is not, then it is as you say, merely a subjective opinion.

Isn't it demonstatably true that what?

That the members of the animal kingdom are determined by their unique cellular structure; meaning that this too is empiracle science, and not merely some flux, subjective opinion as you have been trying to assert.

So they have cells in common and there are unique about them, so what? That is not common ancestory.

Yes it is. All multicellular organisms; plants, animals, fungus, everything, -are all eukaryotes. Everything alive shares multiple levels of fundamental commonality in a specific pattern which suggests common ancestry. While at the same time, nothing whatsoever indicates anything close to a Biblical origin.

Within kingdom Animalia, there are a few different groups, sponges, comb jellies, cnidarians, etc., as well as one group called Bilateria, a group of animals with a particular type of symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry objectively determined by direct observation, and thus empirical?

As usuall you have introduced a term you didn't bother defining you're central term.

I haven't even mentioned my central term. But I did define this word...just now...in the quoted text in red.

Bilateral symmerty may well be important in classifying these creatures but it is hardly relevant when taken in context of how we define species.

Stop the presses! You're actually right about something! None of this is related to how we define species! And it won't be until we get all the way down to the species level. That's because 'species' is not the central term. It's just a terminal taxa.

Just elaborate on the concept of bilateral semmetry and I will respond but just tossing the verbage into the mix is not going to get us anywhere.

I'm sure it won't matter, since this is the 5th question I've asked, and the 5th question you've dodged just in this one post, and you haven't understood any of the definitions I've given you so far. But all members of the taxonomic branch, Bilateria are generally bilaterally symmetrical animals with bodies composed of three different germ layers, (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm). Except for flatworms, all bilatteral animals have an internal body cavity (coelom or pseudocoelom) with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other.

Bilateral animals are divided into several different groups. One of them, Dueterostromia, is determined in embryology by the fact that the anus develops before the mouth, unlike all other bilateral animals. Is this objectively determined? Or mere opinion? Is this objectively determined? Or mere opinion?

I have no real reason to contest this point so I think it is safe to say this is observed and not worth argueing about.

So, if you thought it would comprimise your postion, you would still argue it anyway? That's pretty much what I thought. Anyway, with that admission, let me ask, could we also objectively and scientifically determine that you are a bilateral animal as I have just defined it?

Dueterostromes are either echindoerms, hemichordates or chordates and only the chordates develop the anus first.

I don't know if you are lying or not but the signifigance of this point is pedantic rethoric at a level I have never seen before.

Thanks for yet another insuation of my dishonesty. But I did (several times) show you a link to the peer-reviewed biology pages where you could confirm all of this for yourself. It is not pedantic rhetoric just because your religion requires you to deny it with all your silly name-calling. Now I understand that this is going to be very difficult for you to understand, since you've never seen any of this before, and I've been fluent in it all my life. But if you'll answer the questions I ask, as they are asked, and ask some yourself when you need to, without trying to instigate an emotional response with more childish quips like this, then we'll start to make some progress.

There are a handful of groups within the phylum, Chordata. One of the sub-groups includes every animal in the world that has a skull. Can you objectively determine what animals have skulls? There are two groups within Craniates, one of which includes every animal in the world with spinal vertebrae. Can that be objectively determined? There are two groups within the subphylum, Vertebrata; one of them includes every animal in the world with jaws. Is the presence of jaws empirical or subjective?

Why would I have a problem with how these classifications are organized?

I don't know. That was your choice, not mine. You're the one asserting that this is all non-scientific, subjective philisophy that can be rearranged on a whim. Now that you're beginning to see that its not, I wonder if you will admit your error?

And I noticed that you "answered" three questions with another question; one that allowed you to dodge the other three. I still want answers to them!

Can you objectively determine that animals have skulls? Are you kidding me?

No I'm not. You keep saying that taxonomy is presupposed or subjectively arranged based on the opinion of the observer, etc. But most of this is determined with objective analysis of solid, obvious facts such as whether or not the subject has a skull. Also, you misread the question. I said "what", not "that". Let me paraphrase; 'Can you objectively determine which animals have skulls? If you can, then you can tell Craniates apart from other animals even among other chordates. Can the presence of vertebrae be objectively determined? Is the presence of jaws in animal just a subjective opinion? Or is that too empiricle science?

some animals have skulls but no jaws, but every animal with jaws has a skull. Some animals have vertebrae and no skull. But every animal with a skull has vertebrae. Not everything with a spinal chord has vertebrae, odd though that seems. But every animal with vertebrae has a spinal chord in it, just as every gnathostomate, Craniate, Vertebrate, Chordate is also a bilateral metazoan eukaryote, just as you would expect them to be if they had all evolved from a common ancestor. But this is not what you would ever expect from a common creator not bound by the laws of inheritance. So these facts imply common ancestry. But do any of these facts "presuppose" it, as you implied they did? And now that you know how each of these are determined, do you still think it is only semantics? And if so, why?

Typical. Any simularity is a common ancestor and any difference is an evolutionary change. There is nothing implied here, just presumed.

You're in denial. The similarities and differences follow a very specific pattern It is the pattern that implies common ancestry, and it does so with every organism, at every level.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Let me explain more simply. All muscovies are ducks, but obviously, not all ducks are muscovies. Muscovies are a sub-group of the parent clade of ducks. This is no presumption. Similarly, all ducks are Anseriforms, but anseriforms includes more than just ducks. There are geese and swans in there too, all of which similar enough to be grouped together as a common family even by creationists. All Anseriforms are neognaths, but not all neognathes are anseriforms. Modern aves are divided into only two main groups; the "modern" birds, (neognaths) and the "primitive" birds, (paleognathes). The latter group retain more reptilian features, as you would expect if they shared a common ancestor with other dinosaurs. The former group includes all other birds including Anseriformes. All neognathes are birds, but not all birds are neognathes. And of course, the basal commonality common to all birds is the fact that they are birds. This is not presumed either.

And yes, all birds are diapsids, just as they are archosaurs, but not all diapsids birds, and not all archosaurs are birds. The same goes for amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, etc. etc. This as I said, is not what you would expect from a common creator not restricted to work only within the laws of inheritance. All these facts are consistent with the concept of common ancestry, where none of them indicate any other concept of origins. But do any of these facts "presuppose" it, as you implied they did? And now that you know how each of these are determined, do you still think it is only semantics? And if so, why?

Gnathostomata is divided into a handful of subgroups, one of which include every jawed organism that also has legs, beginning of course with lobe-finned fish, and including several extinct forms as well as amphibians and amniotes. Amniota includes every animal in the world who's embryos develop within an amnion or amniotic sac. Is this empirically determined, Mark? Is any of this less than truthful?

Of course I won't argue that these organisms are classified in this way. Now as far as the truth of you're statement, I have no real reason to deny you're honesty in how you express this. What is interesting here is that you introduced another group of terms that you never bothered to define.

As you can see, (if you'll look) I have defined every term here, in the same paragraph in which the term is used. Which one(s) did you think I had not?

Amniotes include three groups which are still extant, one of which may include another. Anapsids, diapsids, and synapsids are all determined by the number of temporal fenestra, openings in the skull behind the eye

More verbage,

Verbage? Is that like "word salad"? Another admission that you don't what we're talking about? How exactly does one write in English without using verbage? And how does one debate against any scientific field if one refuses to understand the necessary terms, even after they are repeatedly explained to you?

again I have no reason to deny this, just don't see the signifigance

I'm beginning to question when you think you have reasons to deny something and when you don't. Realize that all mammals and all of the "mammal-like reptiles" are all synapsids, including you. This adheres to the laws of inheritance. But a special creator wouldn't have to adhere to that. This is also significant in that you kept accusing taxonomy of being non-scientific, or subjective. Obviously, that isn't the case, because no one can subjectively decide how many temperal fenestra a skull has. That is something that is objectively demonstrable, and empiracle.

Anapsids include turtles and a whole lot of other fossil forms including shell-less turtles and turtles on the half-shell, as well as other things that aren't very turtle-like at all. Diapsids fall into two groups depending on the number of chambers in their hearts, another objectively empirical observation. On the two-chambered side are lepidosaurs, the "true" reptiles, which include loads of extinct groups as well as sphenodons (tuatara) and Squamates, (lizards and snakes). The archosaurs are the diapsids with four-chambered hearts, among other distinguishing morphologies. These include phytosaurs, pterosaurs, crocodilians, dinosaurs, and birds. The synapsid group consists of every mammal that has ever lived, as well as a number of "mammal-like reptiles"; pelycosaurs and therapsids, etc. Is any of this subjective opinion or semantics? If you still think it is, please explain.

How do you determine the extinct animals hearts from the living ones?

All anapsids, living or dead, have one temporal fenestra. Turtles, (which are the only anapsids left) all have a sort of transitional heart with three-and-a-half chambers. Some extinct anapsids may or not have been similarly equipped. But as many Devonian anapsids showed profound evolutionary development in other areas, they may have had two, three, and even four-chambered hearts. Some herpetologists consider early anapsids basal to all diapsids, both archosaurs and lepidosaurs. Lepidosaurs, (of which only sphenodons and squamates remain) all have two-chambered hearts. So extinct lepidosaurs probably did too. Surviving archosaurs, (crocodilians and birds) both have four-chambered hearts, and now dinosaurs are known to have had them as well. Since we already know about three of the five sub-groups, it is only reasonable to assume that phytosaurs and especially pterosaurs likely had four-chambered hearts too. But since we don't for sure in any of these cases, none of these extinct species are defined by their hearts. Instead, they're determined by the physical characteristics of their skulls, teeth, and skeletons. Now answer the question please. Are these clades determined by objective science?

There are about a dozen terms in this particular string of verbage that doesn't really do anything to clarify the issue. In fact it makes for more of the same word salad I have come to expect.

Its difficult to reduce these arguments to the third grade level, so you shouldn't expect me to. Its not my fault if this is over your head. You're the one who decided to argue against something you don't know anything at all about, and aren't able to understand.

Class mammalia includes extinct multituberculates, paleorectoids, and triconodonts, as well as the monotremes, marsupials, and eutherians which still survive. Mammals are fur-bearing (follicled) hemeothermic synapsids with mammae. Is this philosophical? Or can your status as a mammal be demonstrated scientifically?

Is it philosophical? No actually it's extraneous verbage and I have no idea what you think the signifigance is.

If you don't even understand the significance, how could you know if the verbage is extraneous? If you want to pretend to be scientific, be prepared to learn the necessary scientific terms and concepts.

In this case, most of the verbage has already been defined. The significance is that what we recognize as synapsids include many sub-groups, all of them increasingly mammal-like, up to and including true mammals. Of these there were once six distinctly different sub-classes of mammals, (multituberculates, paleorectoids, triconodonts, monotremes, marsupials, and eutherians). But only three remain, and two of them (monotremes and marsupials) are now poorly represented where they were both once much more plentiful. Even placental mammals were once much more plentiful (much more evident diveristy in eutherian groups) in the distant past than there are now. But what is still alive today shows an evident relationship to the other groups through the succession of clades to which all mammals belong, including you. As many times as I have explained this, you should understand the verbage by now. So answer the question please; Are these clades philisophical? Or can your status as a eutherian, a mammal, and a synapsid each be demonstrated scientifically?

Eutherians are a sub-group of mammals which are born live in a placenta. Is this semantics, Mark? Is any part of this not demonstrable science? Do you see any state of flux with any of the terms here? Are there any which I have not adequately defined for you? Do you need to know what the word, 'species' means in order to understand the real, objectively demonstrable scientific meaning of any of these other terms? I so, which ones? And how would discovering some other definition of species that I haven't already given you aid your understanding of these parent groups? Do you see any "rationalizing' involved with any of these? If so, where and why? Are any of these terms speculative? Are any of them "supposition" in the opinion of the observer? If so, how? Are any of these distinctions not directly tied to genetic and fossil evidence simultaneously? If so, which ones? Do any of these ignore any evidence? If so, what? Could any of it have been subjectively manipulated to fit the model? Give specifics in any case where you think it could have been, and remember to explain how this could be done. Also be sure to explain why anyone would want to do such a thing.

The first problem with this is that you never bothered to define these terms you throw out like gospel. The main problem is that you do this as a matter of course.

If you'll look through my copied text, and pick out the lines in red, you'll see that I did define these terms. Now that we've taken care of that lame excuse, let's see you back up your earlier allegations, Mark.

1. Eutherians are a sub-group of mammals which are born live in a placenta. Is this semantics, Mark?
2. Is any part of this not demonstrable science? (If so, what and why?)
3. Do you see any state of flux with any of the terms here?
4. Are there any which I have not adequately defined for you? (If so, what? And how should I have defined that?
5. Do you need to know what the word, 'species' means in order to understand the real, objectively demonstrable scientific meaning of any of these other terms? I so, which ones? And how would discovering some other definition of species that I haven't already given you aid your understanding of these parent groups?
6. Do you see any "rationalizing' involved with any of these? If so, where and why?
7. Are any of these terms speculative? Are any of them "supposition" in the opinion of the observer? If so, which ones? And how?
8. Are any of these distinctions not directly tied to genetic and fossil evidence simultaneously? If so, which ones?
9. Do any of these ignore any evidence? If so, what?
10. Could any of it have been subjectively manipulated to fit the model? Give specifics in any case where you think it could have been, and remember to explain how this could be done. Also be sure to explain why anyone would want to do such a thing.

I do get tired of seeing you ignore everything you know you dare not answer. This sort of behaviour isn't doing your image, or Christianity's any good, you know.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Now since you agree that men are primates, (Anthropoids) then you must accept that this term is scientifically demonstrable, and not just a matter of subjective opinion. So why don't you define that term for me, and tell me how to tell a primate from any other placental mammal? Are there subdivisions within this group? If so, what are they, and how could we recognize them? And would it matter if you were looking at a dead one or a live one? Do you need to know what a species is in order to know if any example animal is a primate or not? Could you still tell what one was even if you only found a skull or even just one of the back teeth? Do you need to find the whole skeleton before you can know that you're holding a piece of a once-complete primate?

For one thing I never introduced the term and for another you never explained how the term was introduced in the first place.

Aah, but I did, several times in fact, in detail most of those times. I even explained it again in this very post in my quoted text above. Primates are defined as anthropoids; which are members of the taxonomic order, Anthropoidea. I've told you all this before. But that didn't matter to you. You used the word yourself, and admitted that men were indeed primates. But you reject my definition of that, and will not provide your own. You've also refused to define a number of the other terms you've used; monkey, ape, redemptive history, etc. Yet you accuse me of never defining my terms after you've rejected my definitions with no valid explanation given. Now before you force me to call you a hypocrite again, you need to define your term. What does the word "primate" mean to you? Tell me how to tell a primate from any other placental mammal? Are there subdivisions within primates? If so, what are they? And how could we recognize them? And would it matter if you were looking at a dead one or a live one? Do you need to know what a species is in order to know if any example animal is a primate or not?

You keep asking me questions that you should be explaining the answers to.

I've done that. I've given you many well though out, researched explanations supported by scientific citation and clinical study. You've rejected them all automatically and without consideration, usually with a single thoughtless and irrelevant quip that wasn't backed up by anything. In other words, you ignore everything I show you out-of-hand as a matter of course. So (as I have already explained) the only way to get you to actually think about any of these things is to get you to explain them in your own words. And since you're not accountable at all, the only way to get you to concede any point is to have you write that into your answers. That's why I have to do things this way.

Now as far as what we could determine about an extinct animal from just the skull and jaw is just that, the skull and jaw.

So when I showed you these, you weren't able to tell even what order of animals you were looking at?

In that case, could there be any squirrels, horses, monkeys, whales or elephants in there? If you can't tell any more about them than "a skull and a jaw" then how would you know? There could be lizards, dinosaurs, birds, or fish in here for all you would know.

But if you can already tell that none of those things are in this group, then you already know also that you can tell more about them than "a jaw and a skull".

I'll get to the rest of the posts but if this one is any indication of what to expect then I doubt the creationism is in any real trouble

Closing your eyes and pretending as you do won't help for long. Eventually, even a blind man will discover what he does not want to see.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Most of what you have tried to prove is begging the question of proof.

That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean?

So there are maybe 100 mutation in the Zygote as a result of transcription errors in the DNA? Most of these are going to be deleted and certainly don't result in speciation, in fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases it produces no selective advantage at all.

This is true. But you were still wrong when you said that all mutations are deleterious or harmful. You were even wrong when you changed that to say that only most of them were. And you've still seen several examples of beneficial mutations, where you kept claiming to have seen none. Mutations are still a significant evolutionary factor responsible for the variables selection can be applied to.

A mutation is not the same thing as an inheritable trait since traits can change at random and the population still be in stasis, which is the rule rather then the exception.

But with every zygote bearing more than 100 mutations, most of which having no effect, and the rest accounting for nothing more than the differences between siblings, you would expect a degree of stasis. But these mutations are obviously still inheritiable traits.

You may not consider 1 mutation in 10,000 to 100,000 copies a rare occurance, I do.

Now if we translate those numbers properly, do you consider 128 mutations per person rare?

No speciation has occured due to mutations, it simply doesn't happen.

This is an assertion that is based on nothing and backed by nothing, and which has already been disproved numerous times from independent sources. This is pretty much indicative of your whole position. But I have already shown you proof that it simply does happen, and that it has already been directly observed happening.

The occasional benificial mutation is anecdotal evidence and is hardly a demonstated mechanism of the ubiquitious common ancestory of all creatures.

Is this your way of conceding your earlier error that "all mutations were deleterious or harmful"? If so, this is a poor way to owe up to your mistakes, and doesn't do your already dismal reputation any good.

The several examples I gave you were hardly "anecdotal", but they definitely were part of the demonstrated mechanism you're trying so hard to deny.

You like taxonomic relations but you don't seem willing to recognize you're own presumptions with regards to ancestory.

That's because I don't have any. I doubt you would ever be able to understand this because you think in a completely alien way from the way I do. But I really don't base any of my perspectives on presumptions. Honestly, all my beliefs are tentative, and subject to change as the evidence demands. For me, it isn't a matter of choice. Unlike you, I can't choose what to believe. That's one of the reasons your whole Hell notion is such a stupid system of judgement. If God created me, he denied in me the ability to believe in anything not supported by evidence, logic, or reason. I was born without faith. I need a reason to believe. And the wilder the claim, the better the reason I'll need to believe it. So if you are right, then God chose that I would be doomed to everlasting damnation literally through no choice of my own. Free will don't work that way.

Of the millions of animal species discovered only about 45,000 are vertebrates. The other 750,000 are insects, crusttaceans, spiders...etc. Now I am aware that biologists must define and distinquish animals as eating other organisms, move, and have cells that lack walls and secrete extracellular matrix. That is the definition they use to distinquish animals from other living creatures and it is actually an analogy that turned into a wrong demonstration of science.

You're going to have to elaborate on that, and explain your position. Why did you mention the invertebrate to vertebrate ratio? What point did you think you trying to make?

Sir Francis Bacon refered to this human tendancy as idols of the theater:

Idols of the theater - "...there are idol which have crept into men's minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration...for we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds." (Sir Francis Bacon, Novum Organum)

That's a marvelous description of your perspective, Mark. But what does that have to do with mine? Mine has to be rigorously tested specifically to avoid this sort of thing.

There are many examples of this in modern biology but I will address only two for the moment. Choanoflagellates, or something like them, are said to be a probable ancestor of modern animals. What is this based on?

This is a good question. The key part is "something like them". In science, you make a working assumption, and examine the surrounding facts based on that assumption in order to test it. In this case, if all animals shared a common ancestor, what would that ancestor be like? Collar-flagellates fit the bill in that they also represent a nice intermediate between animals and fungi. Protists are really a conglomerate multi-group. While they're all fundamentally similar on the cellular level, their outward appearances are very different. Some of them look like algae, some like moss, some like fungus, and a few move about, and live like animals. They represent a perfect central shrub for the fungi and animal groups to branch out of. One of them, dictyostelium, also represents a nice transition from single celled to multicellular organisms in that it travels as a communal animal, a sort of slug. But when it happens onto food, it dissolves into millions of amoebic forms, eats by way of osmosis, and reassembles itself to move on.

They are simular to sponges in their ribosomal RNA and very distant from other plants and fungi.

"Other plants"? Sponges are animals, remember? So we would expect them to be closer to sponges than fungi, and very distant from plants, all just as common ancestry would imply.

Apparently that is all the is required to establish a homological relationship and common ancestory.

Not quite. Remember the link you kept ignoring for the Shape of Life project? Using a gene sequence universally present in all animals, they did a genomic sequence to prove that sponges were the most basal of all macroscopic animals. This was done to test and confirm earlier estimates which were made based only on homology.

Before the Cambrian explosion these unusual looking creatures are thought to be the precursors of the explosion of living systems which includes the emergance of vertabras. In fact, all the major groups of animals (classes and phyla) appear in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods.

Not quite. Arthropods and crustaceans were both already present in the Vendian period, before the Cambrian, as were Anomalicaris and an uncertain number of other phylum that no longer exist at all. Most pre-Cambrian life forms were so unlike anything still living today that we have nothing to compare them to, and no way to understand what they were because so many of them were evidently already extinct during or even prior to the Cambrian era.

What is puzzling about this is that one of the aquired traits are not minor variations in the existing genetic load but an exponential increase in the gene pool that includes the development of skeletons. This is one of the more confusing aspects of homology as conceptual science.

That's because you're running on a collection of false assumptions simultaneously. 1st, I don't know what you mean by "genetic load", and I doubt my genetics professor, or H2Whoa will understand what you think you mean by that either. 2nd, Minor variations (dozens of tiny mutations per zygote) do occur, and these are the traits that are acquired. But minor variations don't increase the gene pool without an exponential increase in population size. 3rd, you're talking about the development of skeletons, and that's not really applicable here. You should look at this as infinitesimally-small variations protracted out over about hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Don't forget how slow this process is. The fossil record indicates that the formation of the skeleton was a very long, slow process with lots of tiny, incremental steps over a very long period of time just to go from a naked notochord to the first segments of calcified deposits on it, and a whooole lot more steps before there was any articulation of anything built up on that.

Creationists commonly misrepresent evolutionary arguments in order to make them easier to ridicule, usually by eliminating the myriad intermediary stages in their "molecules to man" parodies. This is one of the reasons I think taxonomy is such a profound argument. It illustrates just how detailed, and as tediously slow and slight it is, (even the punk eek perspective) particularly in the formation of various parts of the skeleton, which is nothing like what you paint it to be here.

This is nothing more then a creation of a fictitious and theatrical world, a wrong demonstration of science and an idol of the theater.

Your analogy is a wrong depiction of it, that's all.

 

[Aron-Ra]

It is ironic that I am continually being called a hypocrite since the word simply means one who wears a mask. In Grecian theater the actors would switch masks in the course of the play and Jesus Christ was the first to use the term to distinquish the genuine article of faith from pretenders.

Aren't they still doing that with you? I think it quite appropriate that you be seen as one who wears a mask.

Homology is really just an analogy

Is black just white? Up just down? Homology and anology are opposites.

and for some reason these analogies are confused with demonstrative science.

That's because the study of homologous and analogous features is demonstrative science, which you will figure out eventually, depending on whether I can ever get anything through to you.

Structures are often independent of one another but their simularity are homologous structures. This is presumably inherited from a common ancestor but the truth is that they are nothing more then analogous structures because they are not made from the same materials, or organized in the same way which would indicate they they don't have a common ancestor.

This is dead-wrong on so many levels. You don't know what the "truth" is. Every homologous feature I can think of is made of the same materials, and is composed the same way, and can't indicate anything but common ancestry. Look for example at the wing-hands of Rahonavis as compared to those of maniraptorid dinosaurs.

Actually, in this case the whole skeleton is homologous. They're made of the same materials and organized the same way as all other maniraptors.

This kind of reasoning is highly presumptive and a wrong demonstration of science, in fact, it's an argument of science falsely so called.

Yes, your kind of reasoning is all that. But not only that, it is based on nothing and backed by nothing, which is one reason why you're always wrong on every point every time. But the reasoning behind common ancestry is not at all presumptive because it is a demonstration of true science no matter how falsely you call it. Everything in science must be based on evidence, and everything must be tested, which every proposed concept in common ancestry regularly is. Biblical creationism on the other hand is exclusively presumptive, a refusal of science, and falsely aligned against science.

The one thing you conceded was the comment that reptiles had a three-chambered heart. But you divorced yourself from even that error by dismissing it a "careless statement". I don't believe it is possible for you to honorably concede any error, even if you yourself know you're wrong. But I have had to do that many times in my debates. And it has been to my benefit each time.

The three-chambered heart was not a crucial point for me but the radical transition of the metabolism was.

I see. So you'll only concede those points that are safe to concede but not those which would require any change in your initial position. That's pretty much what I thought. But as your own source indicated, there was no "radical transition of metabolism", so I don't know where you dreamt that up.

I cited the source where I had seen that there was a question that the heart in one fossil may have been an artifact. Now I did concede my error, in fact, I would never claim a benefit when I was clearly wrong. That is the same mentality that is creating taxonomic clads that doesn't define or determine anything for certain.

So you would never do....what you just did. Because a creationist first conceived these clades, and they've all been defined very definitely. The one exception you keep whining about was recently corrected when it was previously mis-defined, on purpose, to put the other apes into a different family where it was known from the beginning that they didn't belong. Genetic sequencing proves the apes belong in Hominidae along with us, which is the way Linnaeus defined it from the beginning when he described chimpanzees as Homo troglodytes. Since then, we've learned to be more precise, and we now understand that chimpanzees aren't really humans, but humanoids, (human & humanlike) which is what the word "hominid" means; "humans and their closest relatives", or more appropriately "apes", which means the same thing. Although some sources still cite the out-dated and deliberately erroneous definition, the ones I use are all very clearly defined.

It is also the same rationalization that claims that mutations could serve as the driving force in evolution and it's more demonstrative proof. When the genetics are mutated there is a net loss of genetic information and the development of skeletons could not be the result of genetic mutations. Here again we have wrong laws of demonstration and an idol of the theater.

Ain't that the truth! Everything you post is wrong laws and theatrical errors. But mutations are the driving force in evolution according to everyone in the field who knows more about it than you do. That has been substantially proven even in this very thread several times. It has also been shown to you -time and again- that mutations are often a gain in genetic information, and even more often there is neither a gain or a loss. So you are indeed clearly wrong about that and are still trying to claim the benefit.

the Bible can't be peer-reviewed because it can't be falsified. And it can't be falsified because there is nothing you people would ever accept to indicate that any part of it was wrong.

Another fallacious diatribe that does not address the Bible with regards to it's central emphasis. The ressurection is the heart of New Testament theology

And isn't even related to what we're talking about now, which would be solely dependant on Genesis and other elements of the Old Testament, not the new one, and there are some very different interpretations between the original Jewish authors, and the later Christian's spin.

and the bibliographical testing, that is done on all writings of antiquity, have been applied to the Bible exaustivly.

And it has failed everything we could test about it. For example, we know for certain that there never was a firmament, and there never was any global flood. Each of the demes that currently exist were already in place before the beginning of the Tower of Marduk/Babel, and there was certainly death in the world looooong before anyone ever conceived of any Adam or Eve. All this can be proven scientifically, but because you rely on the excuse of inexplicable miracles compounded onto other miracles by a deliberately deceptive god, then there's nothing you would accept to falsify any of it even after it is disproved.

The Bible was and is critically peer reviewed and there is far more to a scientific inquiry then biological phenomonon.

But the biological phenomenon is known to be real where the same could not be said of anything supernatural, including God.

It could be falsified if the wittness is found to be incompetant, deceptive or did not directly experience the events discribed.

All of which are likely. But there's no way to prove any of them since (1) we can't really be sure who actually wrote them, (2) we have no corroborating evidence of any of the miracles the Bible talks about, (3) we don't even know for sure when these were written, or exactly when (or even if) Jesus was born or died, and (4) there's no way to determine whether there was any deliberate deception involved either in the original works or (5) in the subsequent revisions we have every reason to believe have been done. And (6) we've no idea what happened to the works of the other apostles, except for Thomas, and (7) we still don't know why his gospel doesn't match the others, or why it was omitted, apparently at the whim of men. We can prove that almost every portion of the Jesus story and Genesis had already been told numerous times in pagan mythos many centuries or even thousands of years earlier, and we can see glaring omissions of several of the global events the Bible mentions, including the nine hours of global darkness, which wasn't remembered by any historian or scribe living anywhere near that time. But out of sheer obstinance, you won't accept any of this either. So you're priori obligation of upholding that belief has rendered the Bible unfalsifiable, and therefore not remotely scientific.

There is a direct connection to natural science, for instance, Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind.

And Homo is the Latin word for "human". So that must mean his 'Homo troglodytes' is a human, right?

One of the falsifications that have never been conceded by evolutionary thought are the transitionals, which I have discussed at length. The only place we can find these supposed transitional is in the fossil record and they pose more questions then answers. This is yet another wrong demonstration of science and an idol of the theater.

I don't remember you ever mentioning transitionals, which is surprising, because that's where I wanted our conversation to go. So we certainly can't say you discussed them "at length". You did mention Choanoflagellates, and they're not known from the fossil record, so you're wrong even in that. But I showed you European mice vs their daughter species on Madeira, as well as a few dozen interrelated species within Varanidae and Canidae, and linked them both with others in their parent orders, and neither of these examples are known (primarily) from the fossil record either, though the latter groups can certainly be found there too. I did mention several fossil transitionals among early tetrapods, non-human primates, Hominids, Varanoids, Chelicerates, and aves. And you conceded all of them except the birds, so I don't see how you can claim that as a necessary concession on my part. I'm still waiting for you to concede that your own sources stated flat-out that birds and dinosaurs were definitely very closely-related, and that they thought Archaeopteryx was cold-blooded and retained the respiratory system of reptiles.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You claim that I refuse free inquiry and treat objectivity as sin which is alltogether untrue. The burden of truth at the heart of the emphasis in the Bible has been met by every objective standard of evidence that it has been tested with.

Obviously not, unless it failed those tests. Because how else could you explain all those creationists turned evolutionist? Or all those Christians turned atheist, even among the clergy? Or those who've converted to some other religion?

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? [his capitals] The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
--U.S. President John Adams, in a letter to President John Taylor, 1814

The Skeptic on the other hand need not be objective just weild it's rationalizations like a sword.

The skeptics need not be objective? Skeptics must rationalize? This quote from you already a rather desperate rationalization in itself!

You are curious to see how I confirmed that anyone ever witnessed the power of God first hand and yet you have not the slightest interest of how the rules of legal evidence where applied to the New Testament witness?

That's right. I'm not interested in such irrelevant matters as that. But I am interested in how anyone could confirm anything about the "power of god". Because you see, everyone, including all the Christians priests, and all the high holies of all the world's other religions, all agree that belief in things like God and Jesus have never been confirmed and can never be confirmed because these beliefs aren't based on reason but on faith alone, which is a conviction based literally on nothing but your desire to believe it.

I repeatedly laid out the evidence in an orderly fashion and you have stubbornly, dogmaticlly, and satirically rejected all of it without qualification.

This is another failed attempt to project your faults onto me. But these allegations do not apply, nor will they ever.

There can only be one explanation for this, naturalistic assumptions.

Well, that can't be it, especially since it doesn't make any sense. But there is another explanation: that you never provided any evidence. I asked for anything to show that the account in the Bible was correct. But all you showed me was; 'because the Bible said so'. Well, what else have you got? Because that's just not enough. I promise you I am not dogmatic about anything. That sort of mindset is the very thing I'm here to oppose. But since most evolutionists are Christians, and most Christians are evolutionists, then even the simplest logic demands that the alleged validity of the New Testament obviously doesn't equate to anything that supposedly happened in Genesis, nor can one verify the other by association. So you're going to have to come up with something other than your belief in the Bible to convince me of anything the Bible talks about. Apart from the Bible itself, what else supports the Biblical account? Hmm?

Actually, the democracy (I know you guys hate that word) -that we live in was founded on secularism, as was the Renaissance, which was nothing more than a departure from the rule of the church. I don't know what reformation you're talking about. But since you've been dead-wrong on every point every time thus far, you're probably going to be wrong about that too.

Are you actually oblivious that John Locke was a Puritan Whig, as was Ben Franklin.

Are you actually oblivious to the fact that it doesn't matter? The government of the United States was established by the believers of many religions. But it was founded as a secular government. Are you actually oblivious to the passages concerning the separation of church and state? And the one protecting freedom of religion?

Are you further repulsed that Democracy was a concept that was developed during the Reformation and this is elaborated at length in Alexis De Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America'.

Why would you imagine me to be "repulsed" by such a thing?

"Let us recollect the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided amongst a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil.Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded, and began to exert itself: the clergy opened its ranks to all classes, to the poor and the rich, the villain and the lord; equality penetrated into the Government through the Church,

What a coincidence.

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."
--- Benjamin Franklin; Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

Franklin obviously had a much different impression than you thought he did. This would be why he plugged so hard for the separation of church and state.

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious . there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the soul of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully.

And no other country in the world can match our crime rate, especially for violent crimes. What's your point?

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? .but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

(Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America)

Regardless, the point here is that by "the foundation of this country", we're talking about the foundation of our government. And even this passage clearly states that religion has no place in American government. There may be all sorts of evangelist movements lobbying for politcal power now, but earlier in American history, before evangelist revival movement of the 1830s, the secular nature of American government was still clearly broadcast.

".the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--Treaty of Tripoly; John Adams' administration 1797

Christians hate democracy?

I am always sure to draw a distinction between mainstream Christianity and fundamentalists/creationists.

This is completly baseless and contrary to the actual history of the best developed and longest sustained demoncratic form of government in history.

Hey, don't tell me. Tell that to these people:

"It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all Christians"
--Pat Robertson, 1988 presidential hopeful, and leader of the Christian Coalition, on the 700 Club

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
--Pat Robertson (talking about apartheid in South Africa)

"history is . . . Satan's supernatural conspiracy — the face of which in the United States today is the movement for choice, women's rights, secular democracy and homosexuality."
--Pat Robertson; New World Order

"Reconstructionists are able to dispense with the messy complexity of democracy in favor of biblically-sanctioned authoritarianism." --R. J. Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon Institute, capitol of the American Fundamentalist movement, and currently leading most of the "Christian Right"
"Should Christians do away with Democracy?"
"Rushdoony... often stated that democracy is unacceptable to a proper view of biblical law."
--Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? Thomas Ice (Reconstructionist)
and Wayne House, professor of theology, Dallas Theological Seminary


Tell it to Michael Perry, author of Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy

Tell it to Kent (Dr. Dino) Hovind.

"Right now, the biggest enemy of our rights and freedoms is not foreign or an Afghani terrorist, it is domestic and it is treasonous employees of our very own covetous and deceitful government, who are trying very hard to transform our Republic into an atheistic socialist democracy"
"If Evolution is true, there is no Creator, so laws come from mans opinion. That is called a democracy, which is a terrible form of government. Democracies always degenerate into dictatorships. In America, it is sad to say, has become a democracy. "
--Kent Hovind: 1999 Seminar Transcript 1b from http://216.248.142.66/SeminarOnline/Text/Transcript1.shtml [no longer available]
"Democracy is evil and contrary to God's law."
"The essence of socialism is legislated charity and democracy, and these two are completely incompatible with the legislative intent of the Constitution and all the laws that implement it according to the U.S. Supreme Court."
"America would return to being the Constitutional Republic (NOT DEMOCRACY, but REPUBLIC) that our founding fathers originally intended."

Why don't you try and promote democracy to the rest of the right-wing Christian political activists and see how far you'll get. Because these guys think the United States was meant to be a theocracy like Afganistan was under the Taliban.

Baseless, you say? Didn't you watch CNN's special report tonight?

 

[herev]

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? [his capitals] The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
--U.S. President John Adams, in a letter to President John Taylor, 1814

Aron-Ra--you're good, but you missed on this one. Presidential nut here!
There has never been a president John Taylor (John Tyler and Zachery Taylor, yes)
Tyler wasn't president until 15 years after Adams died, and Taylor 23 years after. Though certainly he could have written the letter to them before they were president.
Adams was out of office in 1801, though certainly he could have written this after he was out of office.
Just thought I'd find out more on your quote and source. I'm interested
Tommy

 

[JAL]

All multicellular organisms; plants, animals, fungus, everything, -are all eukaryotes. Everything alive shares multiple levels of fundamental commonality in a specific pattern which suggests common ancestry. While at the same time, nothing whatsoever indicates anything close to a Biblical origin.

Would somone explain to me why commen ancestry rules out biblical creation? Here's a possible scenario why not. Suppose God had in hand a cluster of genetic material from which He forms all the main species. Here we have a COMMON ANCESTOR (a single cluster of genetic material) but NOT evolution. Now admittedly considerable divergence of species occurred later on (although I'm not certain that macroevolution has been proven) but in any case, I don't see how common ancestry disproves biblical creation. Isn't this partly what Mark is getting at?

However, I cannot agree with Mark about YEC and global flood. I currently hold to an old earth and local flood viewed as a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[JAL]

Woops, I meant I hold to an OLD earth and local flood. Sorry about that.

 

[JAL]

And [the bible] has failed everything we could test about it. For example, we know for certain that there never was a firmament, and there never was any global flood. Each of the demes that currently exist were already in place before the beginning of the Tower of Marduk/Babel, and there was certainly death in the world looooong before anyone ever conceived of any Adam or Eve. All this can be proven scientifically, but because you rely on the excuse of inexplicable miracles compounded onto other miracles by a deliberately deceptive god, then there's nothing you would accept to falsify any of it even after it is disproved.

There's plenty of space between particles, for instance the orbital space of electrons around a nucleus. Hence I've heard it said that "solids" as we see them are mostly empty space. There's plenty of space for the firmament. God has no trouble keeping the firmament hidden from/undetectable by us. And Scripture makes it clear that He does. In my view the fabric of space is principally God's own physical substance - called Firmament - responsible for all the unexplained "forces" that anchor all the stars in place (gravity, magnetism, nuclear attractions/repulsions). This is why Gensesis pictures the Firmament as what anchors the stars, in my opinion.

"Death" is both a physical and spiritual term in my opinion. Satan underwent spiritual death long before Adam and Eve. The Bible is silent on whether physical death took place in animal species prior to Adam and Eve. The fossil record so indicates. Fine. But Adam and Eve were the first true "men" in the BIBLICAL sense of men (regardless of how you yourself define "men"). Death for men, apparently both physical and spiritual, began with Adam according to Paul (Rom 5:1ff).

You also spoke of "demes." I guess this is more evidence against a global flood. Agreed. I think a local flood is the only reasonable reading.

 

[Tomk80]

Would somone explain to me why commen ancestry rules out biblical creation? Here's a possible scenario why not. Suppose God had in hand a cluster of genetic material from which He forms all the main species. Here we have a COMMON ANCESTOR (a single cluster of genetic material) but NOT evolution. Now admittedly considerable divergence of species occurred later on (although I'm not certain that macroevolution has been proven) but in any case, I don't see how common ancestry disproves biblical creation. Isn't this partly what Mark is getting at?

However, I cannot agree with Mark about YEC and global flood. I currently hold to an old earth and local flood viewed as a literal reading of Genesis.

I would agree with you that common ancestry does not rule out God specifically. However, then you do get a problem, which is that the God idea is not falsifiable, and hence not a good scientific theory.

Evolution is specifically supported by the common ancestor model. This also means that if we find a species which does not fit does model, the model is falsified. With the God hypothesis you are proposing, this is not the case. Whatever we will find, you can claim God. I myself am inclined to go for the model which only explains one set of observations, and thus is falsifiable.