Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
... its a big problem for the theory of Evolution, which claims that in the 26 million or so supposed generations of mammalian evolution that a rat-like creature evolved into a Human ... yet over the same number of generations, in a thousand years ... bacteria are still 'muching about' in the dirt ... as bacteria.
... thereby providing evidence of stasis/oscillation within Kinds rather than evolution out of them.
Oh, JC, do I really have to explain this again? Couldn't you at least have read the last thread where I explained this already.
Anyway, it is not a big problem for evolution that bacteria are still bacteria. It would be if they weren't. One of the principles which qualifies as a law of evolution is what Ernst Mayr referred to as Darwin's 2nd Law of Common Ancestry or the principle of monophyly. To put it simply, you can't outgrow your ancestry.
We are animals. We are members of the kingdom Animalia. This means that we survive by digesting other cellular material. So no matter how much our morphology changes, this characteristic still holds. You seem to have a really awful understanding of systematics if you can make such a dumbass statement as the one above.
This is our current system of hierarchical classification:
Bacteria are a domain, one of three along with Archaea and Eukaryota. So saying that humans evolved from rat-like mammals and then comparing that to bacteria is a complete non-sequitur. Oh and bacteria is not a kind either. Not even the wildest fevered ranting of internet creationists has claimed that any kind represents anything above the level of family.
By the way, this is a simple cladogram of the domain Bacteria. Maybe, JC, you can point out at which point on this diagram you expect bacteria to suddenly magically transform into something else.
It's an accepted biological fact that late motherhood is higher risk for both the mother and the child ... while late fatherhood carries none of these risks.
... although, speaking personally, I'd have no great desire to be still changing dirty nappies at 50 TBH!!!:)
Once again, you're wrong. You must have an addiction to humiliation JC.
Anyway, for the record, late fatherhood does indeed carry some significant risks. It has been associated with conditions such as:
Down's syndrome
The influence of paternal age on Down's syndrome
Autism
Perinatal factors and the development of autism: a population study
Schizophrenia
Advancing paternal age and the risk of schizophrenia
Bipolar disorder
Advancing paternal age and bipolar disorder0 -
-
-
Oo0H, Oo0.... ^^^ This is only funny till someone else thanks the two posts above. Mark, you have only added to the fun with the H, but I'm needing an H on the other one mate...... cheers.
Well, I'm amused anyway
Edit: DAMMIT. Some might call it divine retribution that I have got 1st post on next page and this makes no sense any more.
Ignore, nothing to see. Carry on....(embarrassed face that doesn't work in 'edit')0 -
Oh, JC, do I really have to explain this again? Couldn't you at least have read the last thread where I explained this already.
Anyway, it is not a big problem for evolution that bacteria are still bacteria. It would be if they weren't. One of the principles which qualifies as a law of evolution is what Ernst Mayr referred to as Darwin's 2nd Law of Common Ancestry or the principle of monophyly. To put it simply, you can't outgrow your ancestry.
We are animals. We are members of the kingdom Animalia. This means that we survive by digesting other cellular material. So no matter how much our morphology changes, this characteristic still holds. You seem to have a really awful understanding of systematics if you can make such a dumbass statement as the one above.
This is our current system of hierarchical classification:...
I didn't think it was possible to fall in love with a complete stranger over the internet, but I would marry the sh!t out of you based on your posts alone! Is there ANYTHING you aren't knowledgeable about?
But seriously, I'm in serious awe of your brain-power and I am super jealous, everytime I come here to pick up on this thread, I've learned something new from you
Thanks man! No, seriously....thank you 0 -
Sounds suspiciously like 'evolution' within Kinds using pre-existing (ancestral) genetic information ... which is a Creation Science hypothesis that fits current observations on this issue!!!Oh, JC, do I really have to explain this again? Couldn't you at least have read the last thread where I explained this already.
Anyway, it is not a big problem for evolution that bacteria are still bacteria. It would be if they weren't. One of the principles which qualifies as a law of evolution is what Ernst Mayr referred to as Darwin's 2nd Law of Common Ancestry or the principle of monophyly. To put it simply, you can't outgrow your ancestry.
Outgrowing your ancestry is precisely what would have had to have happened if single celled pondslime were to eventually transition into man over millions of generations and millions of years ... but then we all know that outgrowing your ancestry is an impossibility ... without an external infusion of CFSI ... and only the Theistic Evolutionists believe that this occurred!!!
... something we both can agree on oldrnwiser, (for very different reasons), I guess.
... so out goes the idea of single celled life akin to bacteria spontaneously evolving into multicellular creatures ... and eventually into Man.We are animals. We are members of the kingdom Animalia. This means that we survive by digesting other cellular material. So no matter how much our morphology changes, this characteristic still holds. You seem to have a really awful understanding of systematics if you can make such a dumbass statement as the one above.
This is our current system of hierarchical classification:
Bacteria are a domain, one of three along with Archaea and Eukaryota. So saying that humans evolved from rat-like mammals and then comparing that to bacteria is a complete non-sequitur.
That's progress!!!
I don't claim that such a transformation is possible at all ... Creation Scientists actually deny that such tranformations are possible ... it's you guys who claim that we are all descended from pondslime over billions of years ... when, as you have said yourself, such transitions are impossibilities.Oh and bacteria is not a kind either. Not even the wildest fevered ranting of internet creationists has claimed that any kind represents anything above the level of family.
By the way, this is a simple cladogram of the domain Bacteria. Maybe, JC, you can point out at which point on this diagram you expect bacteria to suddenly magically transform into something else.
Interesting papers ... and interesting conclusions in relation to late fatherhood ... that I hadn't seen before.Once again, you're wrong. You must have an addiction to humiliation JC.
Anyway, for the record, late fatherhood does indeed carry some significant risks. It has been associated with conditions such as:
Down's syndrome
The influence of paternal age on Down's syndrome
Autism
Perinatal factors and the development of autism: a population study
Schizophrenia
Advancing paternal age and the risk of schizophrenia
Bipolar disorder
Advancing paternal age and bipolar disorder
Thanks for linking to the papers for us oldrnwiser.
These papers are reversing the conclusions of previous papers on the subject, such as this one, which found no negative links with increasing paternal age.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6449148
... and this one has even found a positve link in terms of longevity
http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/grandfathers-and-telomeres/
For purely lifestyle reasons, fatherhood is a young man's game ...
... and now, by the looks of things, there are significant minuses as well as some pluses to late fatherhood, from a genetic point of view.
Background mutagenesis makes eggs 'sitting ducks' for mutation accumulation with age ... but equally, the only thing holding back the effect of background mutagenesis during the multiple divisions that occur with sperm production is the genetic autocorrection systems ... and research is clearly showing that, in some cases, they are not be able to perfectly restrain the effects of mutagenesis as fathers age ... thereby making it a good idea to get all your reproduction completed by the time you're 40 ... whether you're a man or a woman!!!0 -
-
-
Sounds suspiciously like 'evolution' within Kinds using pre-existing (ancestral) genetic information ... which is a Creation Science hypothesis that fits current observations on this issue!!!
Outgrowing your ancestry is precisely what would have had to have happened if single celled pondslime were to eventually transition into man over millions of generations and millions of years ... but then we all know that outgrowing your ancestry is an impossibility ... without an external infusion of CFSI ... and only the Theistic Evolutionists believe that this occurred!!!
... something we both can agree on oldrnwiser, (for very different reasons), I guess.
... so out goes the idea of single celled life akin to bacteria spontaneously evolving into multicellular creatures ... and eventually into Man.
That's progress!!!
I don't claim that such a transformation is possible at all ... Creation Scientists actually deny that such tranformations are possible ... it's you guys who claim that we are all descended from pondslime over billions of years ... when, as you have said yourself, such transitions are impossibilities.
Ugh, CFSI? Again? Really?
Okay, once more for the remedial section of the class.
I have previously explained to JC the history of human cladistics from chordata to homo sapiens. Anyone interested can see the original post here.
What JC still fails to comprehend about our evolutionary history is this idea of monophyly. Evolution states that any daughter group will retain the characteristics of its parent clade.
For example, about 300 mya the environment on Earth experienced a period of fairly rapid change. This caused a number of developments in the biosphere. In particular around this time, the clade tetrapoda diverged to create two groups, amphibia and amniota. The difference between the two rests on the development of a membrane in amniota which protects the developing embryo. In some descendant species this membrane calcified and became an egg (reptiles, birds etc.) whereas in eutherian mammals this membrane became the amniotic sac which protects the embryo during pregnancy. Therefore all descendant branches of amniota have developed and will continue to develop in this way. It is not possible under current evolutionary theory for a human to suddenly gestate a child in the way that a frog does.
Similarly if we go back even further through time, we can see a similar pattern. Around 550 million years ago, the clade Bilateria (all creatures who are bilaterally symmetrical) diverged to create two superphyla: Protostomia and Deuterostomia (to which we belong). The difference between the two lies again in embryonic development.
In deuterostomes, the anal opening of the blastopore (what will eventually become the alimentary canal) opens before the mouth. In Protostomia this is the other way around.
Therefore when we look at the cladogram of Bilateria:
we can see that all descendant branches of deuterostomia retained this defining characteristic while none of the descendant branches of protostomia do, with no exceptions on either side.
You see this is where creationism breaks down. If indeed we were all specially created then maybe fish could suckle their young and humans could lay eggs, something that wouldn't only indicate a single common ancestry for all eukaryotic life, both genetically and morphologically.
Getting back to JC's notion about bacteria still being bacteria. As I have shown above, all descendant branches continue to retain the characteristics of their parent clade. This extends all the way back to the level of domain. We are all eukaryotes meaning that all of our cells are initially nucleic. However at the base of the tree of life there are three domains which I mentioned previously: Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryota. Prior to the divergence of these three domains, there was a point when natural selection as we understand it (i.e. descent with modification) was not yet occurring. Instead there was a horizontal gene transfer as we see in modern bacteria with the development of drug resistance. We did indeed evolve from an organism which could be classed as a bacteria but through a process known as endosymbiosis.
Both plants and animals developed in this fashion with the divergence between the two shown here:
Endosymbiotic theory is well supported by evidence including:
"- New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission.
- In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate. This shows that the plastid regeneration relies on an extracellular source, such as from cell division or endosymbiosis.
- Transport proteins called porins are found in the outer membranes of mitochondria and chloroplasts, are also found in bacterial cell membrane.
- A membrane lipid cardiolipin is exclusively found in the inner mitochondrial membrane and bacterial cell membrane."
At no point does anything JC has posted present any challenge for evolutionary theory. Hell most of the time he doesn't even make much sense. Regardless, if JC were to be correct and natural selection cannot explain the diversity of life then there should be a point in our ancestry where everything alive today is not obviously related to everything else. Is there such a point JC? Can you actually demonstrate scientific evidence to show that there are discrete boundaries where no relationship can be shown between sister clades. I'm sure we'd all love to see it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
... so we're expected to believe that the mega changes necessary to produce a Human Being from a worm happened ... yet no change occurred in the order in which the anal opening of the blastopore opens when compared with the mouth!!!Ugh, CFSI? Again? Really?
Okay, once more for the remedial section of the class.
I have previously explained to JC the history of human cladistics from chordata to homo sapiens. Anyone interested can see the original post here.
What JC still fails to comprehend about our evolutionary history is this idea of monophyly. Evolution states that any daughter group will retain the characteristics of its parent clade.
Funny thing that Evolution is so impotent to make very basic simple small changes ... yet it can supposedly make massive complex changes, 'at the drop of a hat'.
A much more plausible explanation is that no fundamental change has occurred to organisms since their Creation ... and that is why each Kind has reproduced according to it's Kind ... and even simple phenomena like the order of the blastopore's development in different Kinds remains fixed.For example, about 300 mya the environment on Earth experienced a period of fairly rapid change. This caused a number of developments in the biosphere. In particular around this time, the clade tetrapoda diverged to create two groups, amphibia and amniota. The difference between the two rests on the development of a membrane in amniota which protects the developing embryo. In some descendant species this membrane calcified and became an egg (reptiles, birds etc.) whereas in eutherian mammals this membrane became the amniotic sac which protects the embryo during pregnancy. Therefore all descendant branches of amniota have developed and will continue to develop in this way. It is not possible under current evolutionary theory for a human to suddenly gestate a child in the way that a frog does.
Similarly if we go back even further through time, we can see a similar pattern. Around 550 million years ago, the clade Bilateria (all creatures who are bilaterally symmetrical) diverged to create two superphyla: Protostomia and Deuterostomia (to which we belong). The difference between the two lies again in embryonic development.
In deuterostomes, the anal opening of the blastopore (what will eventually become the alimentary canal) opens before the mouth. In Protostomia this is the other way around.
Therefore when we look at the cladogram of Bilateria:
we can see that all descendant branches of deuterostomia retained this defining characteristic while none of the descendant branches of protostomia do, with no exceptions on either side.
The fact that fish never suckle their young and Humans don't lay eggs is proof that they are both directly created organisms not descended from a common ancestor.You see this is where creationism breaks down. If indeed we were all specially created then maybe fish could suckle their young and humans could lay eggs, something that wouldn't only indicate a single common ancestry for all eukaryotic life, both genetically and morphologically.
Like I have said, such stasis of basic characteristics is indicative of Direct Creation ... and it provides proof of the invalidity of Evolution i.e. fundamental change of organisms required to 'evolve' pondkind to Mankind is impossible.Getting back to JC's notion about bacteria still being bacteria. As I have shown above, all descendant branches continue to retain the characteristics of their parent clade. This extends all the way back to the level of domain. We are all eukaryotes meaning that all of our cells are initially nucleic.
The stasis observed within Kinds is strongly indicative of their Intelligent Creation ... rather than being produced via arbitrary changing Evolution.
All of these systems operate in tight co-ordination and complex functional interactions that are indicative of the creative overview that only intelligent design is capable of.However at the base of the tree of life there are three domains which I mentioned previously: Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryota. Prior to the divergence of these three domains, there was a point when natural selection as we understand it (i.e. descent with modification) was not yet occurring. Instead there was a horizontal gene transfer as we see in modern bacteria with the development of drug resistance. We did indeed evolve from an organism which could be classed as a bacteria but through a process known as endosymbiosis.
Both plants and animals developed in this fashion with the divergence between the two shown here:
Endosymbiotic theory is well supported by evidence including:
"- New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission.
- In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate. This shows that the plastid regeneration relies on an extracellular source, such as from cell division or endosymbiosis.
- Transport proteins called porins are found in the outer membranes of mitochondria and chloroplasts, are also found in bacterial cell membrane.
- A membrane lipid cardiolipin is exclusively found in the inner mitochondrial membrane and bacterial cell membrane."
Common characteristics are indicative of a common Creator.At no point does anything JC has posted present any challenge for evolutionary theory. Hell most of the time he doesn't even make much sense. Regardless, if JC were to be correct and natural selection cannot explain the diversity of life then there should be a point in our ancestry where everything alive today is not obviously related to everything else. Is there such a point JC? Can you actually demonstrate scientific evidence to show that there are discrete boundaries where no relationship can be shown between sister clades. I'm sure we'd all love to see it.
... and the biggest problem for Materiaistic Evolution isn't NS (which is a demonstrable fact) ... it is the identity of the non-intelligently directed mechanism that supposedly produced the genetic information from which NS selects.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
Advertisement