To the evolution deniers

[USincognito]

The theory says that single celled life became multi celled life in the water, which became fish that breathe through gills, which became amphibians with lungs that could breathe air, which developed a warm blooded system and became mammalian, and eventually developed higher levels of thinking and moved into condominiums.

The theory doesn't say that, the evidence does.

It is literally a frog to prince fairytale.

Leaving aside for a moment the misapplication of "literally", humans didn't evolve from frogs so no, just no.

All I am saying is I’m from Missouri…SHOW ME! All these changes obviously require a whole lot of new genetic information to have been added over time. I just want an example of the process observed at work in a multi celled organism.

Are you seriously asking for every single mutation that happened from from a basal protist to a human? How about this. Neither of us are geneticists so instead of pretending either of us would comprehend such a deep analysis, let's look a the evidence for a few nodes along the way.

Animals and fungi are related:
Protistan Origins of Animals and Fungi | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
>> These results further establish Opisthokonta as a bona fide taxonomic group and suggest that any further testing of the legitimacy of this taxon should, at the least, include data from opisthokont protists. Our results also underline the critical position of these “animal-fungal allies” with respect to the origin and early evolution of animals and fungi. <<

Modern vertebrates, including humans, are all related.
Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins - ScienceDirect

Tetrapods are most closely related to lungfish.
The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution : Nature : Nature Research

Therian (marsupial and placental) mammals are all related to egg laying ancestors.
Loss of Egg Yolk Genes in Mammals and the Origin of Lactation and Placentation

 

[USincognito]

The "increase of information" canard is an ad hoc claim of creationists, and is irrelevant to the study of genetics.

Define "information," as relates to molecular genetics.

I've been asking them for years to provide me with a quantifiable metric by which to measure "genetic information" so we can actually determine if there has been a "gain" or "loss" or whatever, otherwise the whole discussion is rhetoric.

Thus far I haven't had an answer.

 

[USincognito]

I was not aware that "most scientists" use "specificity" to detect intelligence. I certainly would not. But before you go on, expand a little on your notion of specificity. I thought you had implicitly defined it in your post above as "intention" or "purpose."

The only time I see specificity in scientific(esque) discussions is when IDers are appealing to specified information as an indicator that intelligent designer (wink wink God nod nod) was involved in the process.

 

[USincognito]

Well thank you very much for defining scientific theory for me. Now he's the one that wants me to go through all the trouble of laying out the creation model, so I think it only fair that he should first layout the evolution model. I don't chase parked cars.

There are a few things that need to be clarified. Evolution is the process that all life undergoes merely be reproducing and having reproductive success effected by the environment. A distilled statement of that process would be "the change in allele representation in populations over time".

The theory of evolution has the dual purpose of explaining how that process works and why we observe a variety of life now and in the fossil record.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Which means you did not proffer a distinct third option.



You admitted above that your something is pretty much my Something. Therefore, you did not proffer a valid alternative and the claim of false dichotomy is frankly invalid.



If I said "good point" I would be dishonest.



KING HENRY V

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Reread the post. They gave you five, and of course there could be countless more.

 

[redleghunter]

Reread the post. They gave you five, and of course there could be countless more.

It was one poster and the one alternative was actually mine repackaged and they admitted such. Therefore invalid.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Actually He did. He said in the beginning God made them male and female (talking about Adam and Eve) and He speaks of it in a "literal" sense. (Matt.19:4 & Mark 10:6)

Right, right and he is "literally" a lamb. It depends how you interprete it. Defend your interruption. Most Christians do not interrupte that literally (like many other things in the bible) because evolution is a fact .They do not believe in a deceiving or undivine Jesus.

Even if Jesus existed, was divine, told the truth and in a way we understood, those actual words are only attributed to him decades after he was suppose to have died on the cross and risen.

Feel free to believe whatever, of course, but I don't believe it is true. Because there is nothing indicating it is, but many things indicating it is wrong.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Well, the delusion gets stronger and sucks more and more people into its black hole, like yourself.



Jesus never spoke of Genesis using symbolic language. Besides, this argument is like saying that if you've ever used symbolic language in your life, then it's perfectly reasonable to interpret anything you say as symbolic. Just because He uses symbols from time to time, doesn't automatically allow one to interpret what He said any way they wish.

I didn't say one should automatically assume something is symbolic or literal. Of course not. We don't even know if Jesus actually existed the way the bible describes him and everything he is suppose to have said is only attributed to him many years later.

If I said "Spiderman is a male, born in NYC and has a girlfriend named Jane..." would you think I actually believed the comic book? Or would you realize I was just discussing an old story? Most Christians (and Jewish people) think much of genesis is allegory and is a "spiritual truth." You aren't presenting anything that would support why it has to be read literally.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well thank you very much for defining scientific theory for me. Now he's the one that wants me to go through all the trouble of laying out the creation model, so I think it only fair that he should first layout the evolution model. I don't chase parked cars.

I’ve got a name you know!

You made a claim that the “Creation Model” made certain predictions. I am asking you what those predictions are, that’s all.

I’ll be frank and tell you I don’t accept that a Creation Model exists and that there are no predictions. It was merely an attempt on your part to present creationism as being on a equal footing with the TOE.

So what were you referring to?

Incognito gave a concise description of the TOE so there’s no point in repeating it, if you want to know more I’d suggest a visit to talkorigins. I repeat I’m simply asking you to back up assertions, which seem outlandish, I’m under no obligation to explain anything.

 

[Ophiolite]

Okay, well thank you. But I'm just getting warmed up.

You mean you intend to be more self-righteous, condescending and patronising than before? I'll get the popcorn.

Back on topic - what level of detail do you wish in describing the the theory of evolution? One paragraph? One page? Half a dozen pages? A book length exposition? Please be specific.

 

[Ophiolite]

It was one poster and the one alternative was actually mine repackaged and they admitted such. Therefore invalid.

Go back. Re-read my posts. Then come back and apologise.

 

[BradB]

Again, more creationist claptrap. Define what you mean by "nature created anything that was specified."

I've defined it several times. The short version that is. It is anything we observe that was formed which displays an intent or purpose. The long version is as follows. Specificity is not to be confused with complexity. When we observe the complex pattern of a snow flake it looks very beautiful and very complex. Much more so than the complex pattern in a key. Both display a unique pattern that one could call complex. And of course we know that one was formed by unguided natural laws of physics and the other by humans. So the question then is does the pattern observed in both the key and the snow flake display any sort of intended purpose? Though the snow flake is much more visually appealing its pattern doesn't serve any observable intended purpose. However the pattern in the key does display an intended purpose. It fits perfectly in an independent key hole and the teeth are the exact sizes needed to set the tumblers in the lock to the unlocked position. This property is observable specificity. If we see a stick laying on the ground we know it is part of a tree which grew by natural unguided laws of physics. But when a chimpanzee picks it up and uses it as a tool to fish ants out of an ant hole we recognize it is being used for a specific intent or purpose. Now we are seeing the characteristic of specificity. In science we use specificity as the primary means of detecting an intelligent source. An archaeologist uses observable design features to distinguish between an ancient artifact and just a natural occurring object. Marine biologists use specific sound patterns made by dolphins which correlate with certain behaviors to detect intelligent communication between dolphins. Though we may not be able to yet translate these sounds we do know they actually have an intelligent language. Even SETI looks for specific radio signals or light bursts coming from deep space which would indicate (if they ever detected) they come from an intelligent source. So apart from being "creationist claptrap" specificity is the scientific key to detecting intelligence.

 

[BradB]

I was not aware that "most scientists" use "specificity" to detect intelligence. I certainly would not. But before you go on, expand a little on your notion of specificity. I thought you had implicitly defined it in your post above as "intention" or "purpose."

Please see the above comments to Hitchslap

 

[BradB]

This simply isn't true. Humans can only have two alleles, one of which is passed down offspring from each parent. There is no such thing as genetic front loading.

A population or species of organisms typically includes multiple alleles at each locus among various individuals. Allelic variation at a locus is measurable as the number of alleles (polymorphism) present, or the proportion of heterozygotes in the population. A null allele is a gene variant that lacks the gene's normal function because it either is not expressed, or the expressed protein is inactive.

Allele - Wikipedia

 

[BradB]

Awesome. You will enjoy Lenski's e. coli experiment then.

Just in case you misread my statement. I said "multi celled" organisms. And I believe e. coli are single celled.

 

[BradB]

Right, right and he is "literally" a lamb. It depends how you interprete it.

We interpret the Bible in the way it dictates to us to interpret it. If it makes a plainly literal statement that is the way we take it. If it makes an obvious metaphor then we take as such. We don't just pick and choose arbitrarily what we want to make a metaphor and what is literal. The Bible does that for us.

 

[BradB]

You mean you intend to be more self-righteous, condescending and patronising than before?

I'm sorry that you take what I say in this way. My suspicion though is that you think calling me "self-righteous" will do me harm. I already said I've got no stones to throw. I am chief of all sinners. Out of love for you I tell you the truth and you seek to harm me for telling you the truth. I just pray that my Father will forgive you because you don't realize what you are doing.

 

[pitabread]

However the pattern in the key does display an intended purpose. It fits perfectly in an independent key hole and the teeth are the exact sizes needed to set the tumblers in the lock to the unlocked position. This property is observable specificity.

There's a problem with this analogy though. Not all keys are designed to fit locks.

There are a lot of 'keys' that are designed for decorative purposes like jewelry, set pieces, props, etc. In fact, it's very easy to construct a 'key' shaped object that doesn't actually unlock anything.

Likewise, if a lock is no longer functional or gets destroyed, does the key originally created for that lock retain its function? Does the specificity of the object change if it can no longer fulfill its original purpose?

Even SETI looks for specific radio signals or light bursts coming from deep space which would indicate (if they ever detected) they come from an intelligent source

In the case of SETI, they are specifically looking for narrow band radio signals. Since the only known sources of narrow band signals are artificial, the assumption is that if aliens invented radio technology similar to our own, any resultant signals would be an indication of intelligence.

There are a fair number of implicit assumptions built into such a search, however.

 

[Speedwell]

Please see the above comments to Hitchslap

Most of which is false. Purpose, as such, is not directly detectable in an object or phenomenon. If I am out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes I have "designed" a hammer. But when I have packed up and gone you would be hard pressed to find the rock I had used. Even if I had shaped it for the purpose by banging it against another rock you still might not be able to find it. Ask any paleongtologist looking for man-made primitive stone tools in a rockpile how difficult it is. And what that paleontolgist is looking for is not design, but indications that the rock has been hand-worked. It is from traces of human manufacturing that design may be inferred, but it is not detected directly.
SETI is another good example. SETI scientists are not looking for coded messages directly, but for narrow-band microwave signals of a kind thought not to be produced naturally. Once again, they are not looking for evidence of intelligent design, but for evidence of intelligent manufacture from which intelligent design may be inferred.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sorry that you take what I say in this way. My suspicion though is that you think calling me "self-righteous" will do me harm. I already said I've got no stones to throw. I am chief of all sinners. Out of love for you I tell you the truth and you seek to harm me for telling you the truth. I just pray that my Father will forgive you because you don't realize what you are doing.

You already have by implying that scientists use what you call "specificity" to detect design except in cases where it might lead to a "designer." In other words, you have made an accusation of hypocrisy. This is standard ID propaganda and you might just be parroting it, but a stone is a stone.