I commend you for following through. I believe that your fundamental argument, that new genetic information mutating or inserting into a species is impossible is flawed. I have personally used virii to insert specific sequences of virii RNA into a bacteria. This is only one way that new RNA/DNA could be introduced into a creature which didn't genetically have a trait before. Taking into account that, the single reference website (which does refer to other references I grant), and some quid pro quo arguments off a questionable thesis, you did a good job.
You debated well, and for a message board such as this, I guess thats the most you can hope for;).
You have a deal.
I will be extremely impressed if you do research to back up your position on those 11 points, no matter what the source, because it means that you are thinking. I can stand differing view points and in fact enjoy them, but I really dislike zealots who spout doctorine, believing without thinking about why they believe. Even accepting something on faith is ok in my book, as long as you know that is what you are doing.
Cheers
Sorry missed that. Ouch my bad. Please use link http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html instead. I was using google and that was the first one that came up. I have read the original paper but was looking for a web reference and didn't even notice what site it was coming from.
Since you seem to not want to understand my response I will lay it out a clearly as I can:
* I read 200+ pages from creationscience.com in order to properly understand where your ideas are coming from
* I crafted my response from my personal training as a biologist. I'm not a PhD but I have a BS from UCLA in biology.
* I did not look at talkorigins.org until after I crafted my response
* I'm waiting for you to respond to my answers to 11 of 20 questions presented by Dr. Walt Brown who holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, not biology.
I would like to point out that though I doubted a true response, I went through 11 of the 20 questions which were the summary.
Also I did read the at least 200 pages refered to under the website. So again I ask you to respond to my answers instead of pointing a out a single paragraph in my response. Also please note I did not once refer to talkorigins.org.
In response to the 20 questions pointed to by Tyreth (note it might be nice to quote people other than Dr. Walt Brown intellegent as he might be):
1.Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.
What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?
Selection of advantagous traits.
If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.
If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?
How could metamorphosis evolve?
Metamorphosis could evolve as a developmental step. Much like an egg developing into fish a second change is not out of the question.
2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one?;) They are complicated.
How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.
How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.
3.Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Why don?t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
See above.
4.Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.
For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms
5.How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man.
The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)
How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.
Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.
6.Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life".
http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.htm l
What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.
If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?
7.Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.
8.How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated.
http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html
How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.
9.If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
Sure, though a "Do you really believe" type question is rhetorical in nature.
10.If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?
11.Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory?
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/
Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin?
Students have been told about various theories of development of the earth-moon system. While theories can be disproven a new theory like the "giant impact" should be addressed directly statements by people with an obvious agenda be it creation or evolution would probably not be the best sources of quotes. Paul M. Steidl in a book The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible would probably be considered biased.
What about the other 90+ moons in the solar system?
Most were probably planetoid capture, some were formed together. If there were 200 moons I see no oddity.
I grow tired of typing. Rebutt these with logic and/or facts and I'll do the rest of the questions. Don't just point at a creationist website and say "see". Thats looser debate;)
Slashdot Mirror
I commend you for following through. I believe that your fundamental argument, that new genetic information mutating or inserting into a species is impossible is flawed. I have personally used virii to insert specific sequences of virii RNA into a bacteria. This is only one way that new RNA/DNA could be introduced into a creature which didn't genetically have a trait before. Taking into account that, the single reference website (which does refer to other references I grant), and some quid pro quo arguments off a questionable thesis, you did a good job.
;).
You debated well, and for a message board such as this, I guess thats the most you can hope for
Cheers
You have a deal.
I will be extremely impressed if you do research to back up your position on those 11 points, no matter what the source, because it means that you are thinking. I can stand differing view points and in fact enjoy them, but I really dislike zealots who spout doctorine, believing without thinking about why they believe. Even accepting something on faith is ok in my book, as long as you know that is what you are doing.
Cheers
Sorry missed that. Ouch my bad. Please use link http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html instead. I was using google and that was the first one that came up. I have read the original paper but was looking for a web reference and didn't even notice what site it was coming from.
Since you seem to not want to understand my response I will lay it out a clearly as I can:
* I read 200+ pages from creationscience.com in order to properly understand where your ideas are coming from
* I crafted my response from my personal training as a biologist. I'm not a PhD but I have a BS from UCLA in biology.
* I did not look at talkorigins.org until after I crafted my response
* I'm waiting for you to respond to my answers to 11 of 20 questions presented by Dr. Walt Brown who holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, not biology.
Cheers
I would like to point out that though I doubted a true response, I went through 11 of the 20 questions which were the summary.
Also I did read the at least 200 pages refered to under the website. So again I ask you to respond to my answers instead of pointing a out a single paragraph in my response. Also please note I did not once refer to talkorigins.org.
In response to the 20 questions pointed to by Tyreth (note it might be nice to quote people other than Dr. Walt Brown intellegent as he might be):
;) They are complicated.
m l
;)
1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.
What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?
Selection of advantagous traits.
If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.
If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?
How could metamorphosis evolve?
Metamorphosis could evolve as a developmental step. Much like an egg developing into fish a second change is not out of the question.
2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one?
How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.
How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.
3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Why don?t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
See above.
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.
For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms
5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man.
The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)
How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.
Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life".
http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.ht
What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.
If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated.
http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html
How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.
Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
Sure, though a "Do you really believe" type question is rhetorical in nature.
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory?
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/
Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin?
Students have been told about various theories of development of the earth-moon system. While theories can be disproven a new theory like the "giant impact" should be addressed directly statements by people with an obvious agenda be it creation or evolution would probably not be the best sources of quotes. Paul M. Steidl in a book The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible would probably be considered biased.
What about the other 90+ moons in the solar system?
Most were probably planetoid capture, some were formed together. If there were 200 moons I see no oddity.
I grow tired of typing. Rebutt these with logic and/or facts and I'll do the rest of the questions. Don't just point at a creationist website and say "see". Thats looser debate