The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[createdtoworship]

The universal common ancestor already had these systems. Are you saying that you have no problem with all life evolving from a universal common ancestor?

How? How can a universal common ancestor have the systems to communicate with DNA to build protein but not have DNA. Even if it had both, how could one evolve if they were irreducible? Both must have evolved simultaneously, the chains of nucleotides AND the language to interpret the chains and build proteins. Do you have any experiments where this is done in a lab? I don't think so. Do you have any evidence or observations that this can or is possible in a biological sense? I dont' think so. You are clearly out of answers. It's real easy to state, "Oh the DNA already existed," but when we are talking about abiogenesis it's a different story. Abiogenesis uses the same methods of evolution as everything else, it's just a chemical evolution. As those who define chemical evolution if it's abiogenesis, and they will state yes!

 

[createdtoworship]

Whether or not Australopithecines were obligate bipeds is a different question than whether or not they are transitional. Did they have a human-like pelvis? Yep, sure did. That is what makes them transitional.



I just showed you the pelvis. It is more human-like than ape-like.

in a 2 dimensional photograph it's hard to see if the iliac bone wraps the pelvis or is facing forward. This I assume is why the majority of lucy pictures are from the front and less from the sides.

 

[createdtoworship]

All they did was assume that Lucy was bilaterally symmetrical. The left side of the pelvis is nearly complete, and if you have one side, you have the other, too.



Do you have any honest?



We do know that the femurs angled inward, like humans. We know that the pelvis is human-like. I have showed you all of those things, and you run away from it.

just answer this one question was the iliac bones facing forward? and do humans face forward?

 

[createdtoworship]

No wonder you are still looking for the "missing link"

You cannot ask for something that does not exist then gripe if you don't find it.

funny that LoudMouth has given two possible candidates for my questions of macro evolution between Genus, one was a whale/dog like transition and the other was a human/ape like transition. Both subsequently failed to be a transition of one of the two.

Here is a diagram of the links that taxonomists recognize. I know you will not accept this but keep in mind that automatically rejecting evidence is not a very good strategy for understanding the world.

where? I missed it.

But your personal definition does not count. It is the taxonomists definitions that count...
If you insist on using personal definitions then you will never get the answers you insist on. Basically there are no "missing links" used in taxonomy. That term is primarily the domain of creationists, reporters and headline writers but not science.

well the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species". Some sites just define it as "evolution on a grand scale". So there is wiggle room.

Evolution 101: Macroevolution

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

want more?

 

[Loudmouth]

just answer this one question was the iliac bones facing forward? and do humans face forward?

Is the ilium on the side, like it is in humans? Just answer the question.

 

[Loudmouth]

in a 2 dimensional photograph it's hard to see if the iliac bone wraps the pelvis or is facing forward.

Baloney. It's as plain as day.

Here are several more comparisons from the side, showing that the ilium is rotated just like it is in humans and completely unlike chimps (i.e. P. troglodytes).

 

[Loudmouth]

How? How can a universal common ancestor have the systems to communicate with DNA to build protein but not have DNA.

They had it. That's all that matters as it relates to the evolutionary pathways after that point.

Are you really saying that you fully accept that all life evolved from that common ancestor?

You are clearly out of answers.

Do we also have to know where the first life came from in order to use DNA fingerprinting in forensic science?

It's real easy to state, "Oh the DNA already existed," but when we are talking about abiogenesis it's a different story. Abiogenesis uses the same methods of evolution as everything else, it's just a chemical evolution. As those who define chemical evolution if it's abiogenesis, and they will state yes!

We aren't talking about abiogenesis. We are talking about evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

funny that LoudMouth has given two possible candidates for my questions of macro evolution between Genus, one was a whale/dog like transition and the other was a human/ape like transition. Both subsequently failed to be a transition of one of the two.

They didn't fail.

well the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species". Some sites just define it as "evolution on a grand scale". So there is wiggle room.

Doesn't change the fact that genus does not exist in nature. It is a completely human contrivance. The only meaningful division is at the species level, where genetic isolation is causing different populations to accumulate different mutations. Everything from genus on up is nothing more than human constructs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I like all the plaster of paris guess work. Do you have a complete fossil of either lucies hip, knee, ankle or feet?

Until then you don't really know how it walked do you?

If I found the left or right half of an animal with lateral symmetry, would it matter that it was incomplete?

 

[PsychoSarah]

there is a lot of genetic code with little or no CSI, however it's the genetic code that HAS csi that is the key. The way you can tell, is that DNA cannot evolve by chance. It therefore has CSI to it because there is no other option. It can't have neither CSI nor evolutionary traits, it has one or the other. For example if you can somehow evolve a strand of DNA getting the proper types of nucleotides and linking them contrary to chemistry of water being soluble. Then even IF you had a code, you have no language to communicate WITH the DNA to utilize the building of proteins. In other words you need simultaneusly for a program engine to evolve at the same time. This itself is obsurdly possible by random chemistry. So please show how evolution has evolved DNA and utilized programs to build proteins from scratch with no bioavailable matter to begin with.

We can get pretty deep into this if you wish I was summing it up basically.

protein and DNA have CSI by default.

call it a argument from ignorance, or God of the Gaps but I can call your pseudo science the same thing.

evolution has no means of chemically creating DNA .

if you want to look,

check out wikipedia on chemical evolution versus biological evolution.

they are both evolution.

Actually, it was proven a long time ago that organic molecules can occur outside of a living body. Also, prions, basically warped proteins that cause disease, reproduce through contact (amino acids and other proteins will begin to imitate their shape just by contact or being nearby). This is a nonliving organic molecule "reproducing" itself. And proteins easily occur in nature.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

Here is a diagram of the links that taxonomists recognize. I know you will not accept this but keep in mind that automatically rejecting evidence is not a very good strategy for understanding the world.

Grady

where? I missed it.

I left it off. I caught it but had to leave and did put in on yet, sorry about that.

Cetartiodactyla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a point I was discussing your insistence of a "missing link" not micro/macro evolution, Science does use the term "macroevolution" from time to time but not in the way creationists want to use it as somehow a barrier to evolution. None of the sites you listed take that approach so what is the point of listing them?

As we keep trying to tell you genus is simply a man made arbitrary classification system for the convenience of scientists. We as human beings like to see patterns and this is one example of this.

Really all classification systems are human made and to some degree arbitrary. Nature does not divide into groups very well but we humans are very good at it.

I think you are back to the old prime point of creationists that someway, somehow there is something wrong with evolution. That seems to me to be what you are trying to establish but it is not going to be productive considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Dizredux Grady I left it off. I caught it but had to leave and did put in on yet, sorry about that.

no problem

Cetartiodactyla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thank you. As far as I can see the taxa that has been installed early on in the scheme of things seems to keep it pretty unbiased, however your link seems to be as biased as they come. Insisting whales and dog like animals are in the same group. Wierd.

As a point I was discussing your insistence of a "missing link" not micro/macro evolution, Science does use the term "macroevolution" from time to time but not in the way creationists want to use it as somehow a barrier to evolution. None of the sites you listed take that approach so what is the point of listing them?

so now taxa is evidently unsientific all of a sudden when I use it but it's okay when you use it? Well here is a link found using google scholar that says otherwise:

" the taxonomy of living species is critical to understanding evolutionary relationships."

CiteULike: Primate Taxonomy

would you like more links, this took just a minute to find.

As we keep trying to tell you genus is simply a man made arbitrary classification system for the convenience of scientists. We as human beings like to see patterns and this is one example of this.

yes we all know this, but it doesn't keep you from using "Cetartiodactyla"

Really all classification systems are human made and to some degree arbitrary. Nature does not divide into groups very well but we humans are very good at it.

it's called organization, thats what taxonomy is all about, grouping and sorting. Nothing more nothing less.

I think you are back to the old prime point of creationists that someway, somehow there is something wrong with evolution. That seems to me to be what you are trying to establish but it is not going to be productive considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

micro evolution is a beautiful thing, I don't despise it at all. But macro evolution is simply lacking in scientific realm. No obervations, no data collecting, no hypothesis, not testing. Definately not science.


Thanx for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually, it was proven a long time ago that organic molecules can occur outside of a living body. Also, prions, basically warped proteins that cause disease, reproduce through contact (amino acids and other proteins will begin to imitate their shape just by contact or being nearby). This is a nonliving organic molecule "reproducing" itself. And proteins easily occur in nature.

I know orgainic things can reproduce even when dead (like virus') but I have a problem with how proteins occur easily. Proteins are a chain of amino acids. They have right handed and left handed ones. 100% need to be the right direction oriented to be chained up. Also ever heard of dipeptides, these are links of small numbers of amino acids if my memory serves me right. And they have numerous occasions of 2 and maybe 3 peptides but rarely ever any more than that occuring naturally in say water. But a protein is 20-40 peptides long I believe (maybe more). So no they don't occur naturally you can say. I have to look up my notes on it but, they are pretty miraculous to get a protein useful for living production randomly occuring.

 

[createdtoworship]

If I found the left or right half of an animal with lateral symmetry, would it matter that it was incomplete?

thats not proof, thats guesswork. An Artistic rendition. How do you know that that animal was not defective?

 

[createdtoworship]

They didn't fail.



Doesn't change the fact that genus does not exist in nature. It is a completely human contrivance. The only meaningful division is at the species level, where genetic isolation is causing different populations to accumulate different mutations. Everything from genus on up is nothing more than human constructs.

see my latest posts to dizredux. I provide links that show taxa is still a valuable asset even to your precious views (evolution).

 

[createdtoworship]

We aren't talking about abiogenesis. We are talking about evolution.

look up chemical evolution and tell me how it's not evolution.

(chemical evolution is abiogenesis btw)

 

[createdtoworship]

Baloney. It's as plain as day.

Here are several more comparisons from the side, showing that the ilium is rotated just like it is in humans and completely unlike chimps (i.e. P. troglodytes).

thank you for the comment, but it looks like fake renditions, they are too clean to be originals. Photoshop maybe?

 

[Dizredux]

Grady:

As far as I can see the taxa that has been installed early on in the scheme of things seems to keep it pretty unbiased, however your link seems to be as biased as they come. Insisting whales and dog like animals are in the same group. Wierd.

Take it up with taxonomists not me. It is not my area of expertise and as such I pretty listen to what the taxonomists say. It is their field after all.

Diz

As a point I was discussing your insistence of a "missing link" not micro/macro evolution, Science does use the term "macroevolution" from time to time but not in the way creationists want to use it as somehow a barrier to evolution. None of the sites you listed take that approach so what is the point of listing them?

Grady:

so now taxa is evidently unsientific all of a sudden when I use it but it's okay when you use it? Well here is a link found using google scholar that says otherwise:

I cannot see any way you got this from what I wrote. To use your term "Wierd".

Grady

" the taxonomy of living species is critical to understanding evolutionary relationships."

CiteULike: Primate Taxonomy

would you like more links, this took just a minute to find.

What on earth are you after? I am not the one with difficulities with taxonomy, your are.

Diz:

As we keep trying to tell you genus is simply a man made arbitrary classification system for the convenience of scientists. We as human beings like to see patterns and this is one example of this.

Grady:

yes we all know this, but it doesn't keep you from using "Cetartiodactyla"

Huh! Where did that come from?

Diz:

Really all classification systems are human made and to some degree arbitrary. Nature does not divide into groups very well but we humans are very good at it.

Grady:

it's called organization, thats what taxonomy is all about, grouping and sorting. Nothing more nothing less.

I think that's pretty much what I said but I do want to stave off problems so I will reinforce the point that it is not all arbitrary and taxonomy has some pretty firm rules so it is a bit more to it than simply grouping and sorting.

Diz:

I think you are back to the old prime point of creationists that someway, somehow there is something wrong with evolution. That seems to me to be what you are trying to establish but it is not going to be productive considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Grady:

micro evolution is a beautiful thing, I don't despise it at all. But macro evolution is simply lacking in scientific realm. No obervations, no data collecting, no hypothesis, not testing. Definately not science.

OK, we have you on one side and thousands of scientists in the biological fields in many nations and of many different faiths saying different. Who do you think I am going to listen to?

I really think the last three paragraphs covers the issue well.

Take care,


Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Diz:Grady: OK, we have you on one side and thousands of scientists in the biological fields in many nations and of many different faiths saying different. Who do you think I am going to listen to?

I really think the last three paragraphs covers the issue well.

Take care,


Dizredux

okay take care, just one thing...

remember that who is paying these scientists and teachers and professors who are stating this?

the state most likely. (not all scientists are payed for by the state),

but given todays political climate if you take a stand for evolution your job may be lost due to "sudden government cutbacks." So go ahead and believe the consensus. But that is actually just an appeal to authority, and secondly an appeal to the populus (which are logical informal fallacies.)

take care.

 

[createdtoworship]

I get the fealing that many dont' understand what CSI entails, here is a link I found today that helps out (perhaps)...

COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION (CSI) – An Introductory Discussion of Specified Complexity | Intelligent Design

One easily testable form of biological CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. Irreducible complexity is falsifiable, and therefore a legitimate scientific hypothesis.

also a peer review article on CSI
a peer review journal published this article for steven c meyers (ID theorist) regarding information

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.
evolutionnews.org reports casey luskin regarding the article:
"Meyer's suggested definition of "specified complexity" is useful in describing functional biological information. Specified complexity is a concept derived from the mainstream scientific literature and is not an invention of critics of neo-Darwinism. In 1973, origin of life theorist Leslie Orgel distinguished specified complexity as the hallmark of biological complexity"



peer review article found midway down link below

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177