The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C wrote: »

... 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.

J C wrote: »

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 disorder

And still they gazed,and still the wonder grew
that one small head could carry all he knew.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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

J C wrote: »

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."

Once the domain Eukaryota was established then descent with modification became the primary method of gene transfer and while we still see observed instances of horizontal gene transfer today, natural selection (for the moment) remains the dominant method.


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.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

... 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!!!
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'.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

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.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

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.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

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.
The stasis observed within Kinds is strongly indicative of their Intelligent Creation ... rather than being produced via arbitrary changing Evolution.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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."

Once the domain Eukaryota was established then descent with modification became the primary method of gene transfer and while we still see observed instances of horizontal gene transfer today, natural selection (for the moment) remains the dominant method.

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.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

Common characteristics are indicative of a common Creator.
... 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.

Here's a suggestion J C - try accepting that observable scientific fact is always going to win against arguments based upon increasingly bizarre interpretations of an ancient book.

Creationism and your arguments here based upon it have no credibility because you can literally make up anything in an attempt to explain away the obvious defects.

Sarky wrote: »

... and then in your next post you demonstrate your complete failure to take any valid information in board. Really, J C, you could at least pretend you're interested in learning from your mistakes.

The key issue in all of this is how the genetic information that NS selects from came to be.
You guys say it all was produced by accidents/mistakes AKA mutations ... and I say that it is impossible to improve/produce Complex Functional Specified Information by making random changes to exsiting Complex Functional Specified Information ... all that happens whenever this is observed to occur is that the CFSI degrades.
Then you guys just put your fingers in your ears and dance around shouting that CFSI doesn't exist and even if it does, it cannot be defined ... even though it is defined in the very words used to describe it.:)
... and you then accuse me of not learning from my mistakes.
... pot ... kettle ... black!!:)

ninja900 wrote: »

Here's a suggestion J C - try accepting that observable scientific fact is always going to win against arguments based upon increasingly bizarre interpretations of an ancient book.

... and the observed scientific fact is that mutagenesis degrades genetic information ... and the argument that such degredation is a plausible mechanism to provide the increase in genetic information objectively required to 'evolve' from pondkind to mankind is never going to win ... as it is arguing that an observed impossibility occurred.

ninja900 wrote: »

Creationism and your arguments here based upon it have no credibility because you can literally make up anything in an attempt to explain away the obvious defects.

Hypotheses are all 'made up' i.e. they are the best available descriptions of how a phenomenon occurs ... and they are validated by observation, experimentation and logic.
The idea that genetic information destroying mutagenesis created the genetic information observed in living organisms isn't validated by observation, experimentation or logic.
Only an intelligence approaching that of an omnipotent God is capapble of producing the intelligently created genetic information on the scale and complexity that is observed in living organisms.
... so who is actually making up stuff in an attempt to explain away the obvious defects of their 'origins' hypothesis?

EdgarFriendly wrote: »

It's futile trying to imagine every single mutation that occurred to drawn a line from simple life to homo sapiens.

... just as well (for evolution) then, because not only do we never observe such transitions ... in many cases it is impossible to even imagine how they would occur, while not conferring a distinct disadvantage due to the non-functionality of the intermediate versions of the characteristic under transition.

EdgarFriendly wrote: »

You can highlight major transitions above the species level in the fossil record, but it doesn't matter because we have comparative DNA analysis to confirm shared ancestry.

... or, much more likely, a shared creator.

EdgarFriendly wrote: »

Phylogenetics is the most clear-cut, evidential field confirming that evolution is a fact and that every single living thing on earth shares a common ancestor. Please, get over your silly creationist myths.

It's one of the most compelling evidences for a common Creator of all life AKA God. Please get over your anti-God beliefs ... and give credit where credit is due!!
You will meet Him some day ... and He speaks highly and lovingly of you.:cool:

J C wrote: »

yet no change occurred in the order in which the anal opening of the blastopore opens when compared with the mouth!!!

No change?

Are you kidding me?

I mean we all know that you're pretty clueless when it comes to biology but I expected that you would at least be able to read. I did just point out those changes in my last post.

Firstly, a small but important distinction which underscores just how little you seem to understand, deuterostomia is a superphylum not an order. A superphylum encompasses orders.

Secondly, since the emergence of deuterostomia as an offshoot of bilateria occurred approximately 560 mya we have seen many changes. 500,000 years ago there were no modern humans. 3 million years ago there were no humans of any kind, no Hominids 25 million years ago and no primates 100 million years ago. There were no mammals 200 years ago and not even any land animals 400 million years ago. The idea that there has been no change in deuterostomes in 560 million years is laughable just like creationism.

J C wrote: »

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.

Except that we can show such fundamental changes. Changes like this:



This image shows how our chromosome 2 formed from the fusion of two chromosomes in our MRCA with chimps.

Similarly this image:



shows how an the development of a neocentromere on chromosome 6 resulted in our inability to produce Vitamin C.

Even if we look at things morphologically we see a history of these changes:




We can even quantify all the various overlapping pieces of evidence and show how they all lead to the same conclusion - evolution by natural selection:

J C wrote: »

Common characteristics are indicative of a common Creator.
... 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.

Ah yes, common design, the cavity plot insulation of creationism. Let's just use some of the "God just did it like that" to plug all the holes in our leaky story. So somehow common characteristics implies common design and yet dissimilar chacteristics also imply it. Yeah, makes sense if you've just taken a large polo mallet to the logic centre of your brain. You've been hammering out the same tired "arguments" for years now, CFSI, kinds, common design. I know you can't actually argue honestly at this stage but couldn't we at least have some new and inventive bullsh1t arguments from you instead.

Sarky wrote: »

Looks like you haven't read a single thing oldrnwisr posted lately. Shame, that, you really could have learned something.

I have addressed oldrnwiser's excellent posts here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87725049&postcount=318
and here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87745095&postcount=323