Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see nobody wants to answer how the cyanobacteria magically appeared and started photosynthesis and then magically spawned diverse life that reproduces in various ways.
Let's address how this proposal is impossible. If cyanobacteria were here first that does not explain how more complex organsms "evolved" from this. Variation always produce less genetic information in the offspring than it's parent (you continue this process for forever they will always be the same species). For instance a white tiger is still a tiger (with less genetic material than it's progenitor). The eukaryotes that are proposed to have evolved from these cyanobacteria are more complex. The organisms that allegedly evolved from that are more complex. You telling me "evolution did it" does not explain how these simple life forms spawn complex.
Q: Where do you guys get this stuff? Please... provide me ASAP with the link that even says (in complete error, btw..) that in every case of mutation (variation) we always get less infomation! WTFrick!
I'm not even going to pre-bite on that rancid worm. You have to prove it to me first, and let me tell you Bar'el: apparently I know a LOT more about this than you do, and am about to prove it.. Neener neener neener!
(BTW #2: I surely hope you cite Lee Spetner. A physicist & a guided missile engineer ypu, with nary a single biology degree in sight. All he claims is that he really wanted to discount evolution by chance following his hearing some bunk from a Jewish rabbi who claimed there are only 365 species of animals on this planet. Wow! Count much, guys? Hilariously funny.)
I can put that guy away so fast, it'll make your head spin. But please.. oh please.. cite him! PLEASE!) (Of course, I predict you'll run & hide instead...)
Q: Where do you guys get this stuff? Please... provide me ASAP with the link that even says (in complete error, btw..) that in every case of mutation (variation) we always get less infomation! WTFrick!
I'm not even going to pre-bite on that rancid worm. You have to prove it to me first, and let me tell you Bar'el: apparently I know a LOT more about this than you do, and am about to prove it.. Neener neener neener!
(BTW #2: I surely hope you cite Lee Spetner. A physicist & a guided missile engineer ypu, with nary a single biology degree in sight. All he claims is that he really wanted to discount evolution by chance following his hearing some bunk from a Jewish rabbi who claimed there are only 365 species of animals on this planet. Wow! Count much, guys? Hilariously funny.)
I can put that guy away so fast, it'll make your head spin. But please.. oh please.. cite him! PLEASE!) (Of course, I predict you'll run & hide instead...)
Mutation is a form of variation but it doesn't add new information. If it's harmful it will be eliminated otherwise it will be in the population through natural selection. Nevertheless this will NEVER change a species into another kind (ie whale to cow or dinosaur to bird). The variations can change appearance but it will not change the information (because natural selection is selecting from a gene pool that already exists).
Mutation is a form of variation but it doesn't add new information. If it's harmful it will be eliminated otherwise it will be in the population through natural selection. Nevertheless this will NEVER change a species into another kind (ie whale to cow or dinosaur to bird). The variations can change appearance but it will not change the information (because natural selection is selecting from a gene pool that already exists).
Not true....Mutation is crucial in speciation because reproductive barriers cannot be generated without mutations. From generation to generation, well-understood molecular mechanisms reshuffle, duplicate, and alter genes in a way that produces genetic variation. This variation is the raw material for evolution.
In my childhood time, an event happened, which I mention here as an indication and explanation of Adam's creation from slime. ..
We were dwelling in the city of Kerbala in Iraq; at that time I was about eight years old; my father had a store for cereals like wheat, barley, … etc.
One day, I went to my father in his store of cereals. My cousin, Abbas who was one and a half year older than I was, went with me too; and we started playing.
We entered one of the stores which was devoid of cereals; but while we were playing, we saw a cotton-white mouse come out of a hole in the ground; it went running in that store. I liked its color, and ran after it to catch it, but when the mouse didn't find any way to escape from me, it returned back to its home.
I told my cousin about it, and searched about an iron bar to dig the mouse hole that I might find it and catch it; so I dug and dug and removed the soil till I reached to its bottom, the depth of which was not more than one foot.
And I saw … many mice stuck to the ground as if a big stone had fallen on them that stuck them to the ground.
I saw one of them alive, moving its head and looking with its eyes, but the lower part of its body was stuck to the ground.
I saw another one do not move save only its eyes, while all its body was stuck to the ground.
Another one, was without any movement, where half of it was inside the ground, while the other half was visible as if it was sleeping in the mud, but that wasn't any mud; it was a wet soil.
I saw some of them drawn in the ground so that: this is its head, this is its belly, and those are its limbs, as if the hand of a clever draughtsman had drawn it on the ground, or a clever sculptor had cut them out.
All those mice were of one size, no small or large among them, but they were of the same size as that white mouse which came out of the hole.
All their heads were directed towards one side, and their lower parts to the other side.
When I saw that, I surprised and said to my cousin: 'Why have these mice stuck to the ground? Has there something heavy fallen upon them and stuck them to the ground, or is there any other reason?'
He looked at them for a while and said: 'It isn't like what you think. These mice are in their stage of formation from soil!'
I said to him: 'Didn't you see the five little mice that we found in our room? Didn't my mother say that mice are born little and they grow bigger gradually? Then how do you say that these mice are in their formation stage!?'
He said: 'Don't you see some of them alive and moving, while some others have no life, so they are like the sleeping!?'
I said to him: 'These might be dead because of the heavy soil that fell upon them!'
He said: 'No, but look to what I shall do!'
He then picked up a small stick from the ground; he drew it on the belly of one of the alive mice, and it died immediately. Then he drew it on the lower part of the body of the other living mouse, and it died.
He said: 'Don't you see?'
I said to him: 'If you cut its belly, then how doesn't it die?'
He said: 'Is this a knife or a small stick?'
I said: ' A small stick sometimes slaughters like a knife!'
So he picked the lower part of some of those mice, and smashed it between his fingers, and it became like the soil; he said: 'Look!'
I, too, picked a stick from the ground, and drew it on the belly of a living mouse, among those mice that were stuck to the ground, and its belly was cut but no blood or anything else came out of it, only it was like mud.
Then I cut a leg of one those mice, smashed it between my fingers to find that it was only a wet soil, which was drawn in the shape of a mouse.
At that time, I realized for certain that that small home was a factory for mice formation and production; but in a way different from that I once had seen in the room of our house, which produced five little mice by the ordinary birth.
One who looked to those pictures and drawings might imagine that as if a clever sculptor had cut them out, and an Able Maker had made them, but in the mud, not in the stone.
So, celebrated be His praises, Who cut them out in a wet soil instead of hard stone, and celebrated be the praises of their Creator, once in the earth from slime, and another time in the wombs from a scanty fluid, i.e. the semen.
Therefore, God - be exalted - showed to me some of His unseen [or unveiled] signs in order not to doubt in my faith, and to be with sure belief; so الحمْدُ للهِ رَبِّ العالَمِين
The explanation:
(Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.) – the Quran 1: 2
I say: No doubt that God - be exalted – created Adam and Eve in this way; i.e. He created them, in the inside of the ground, from wet soil, and they were planted like how the truffles do plant; and when their creation was complete, they got out from that grave to the surface of the earth.
God - be exalted - said in the Quran 71: 17 واللهُ أنْبَتَكُمْ مِنَ الأرْضِ نَباتاً
The explanation:
('And God has formed you from the earth as a planting.')
God - be exalted - said in the Quran 90: 4 لَقَدْ خَلَقْنا الإنْسانَ في كَبَد
The explanation:
(Surely, We created man [: Adam] inside [a grave; and his progeny inside the womb.])
It means: under or inside the ground.
The meaning: God created Adam in the 'inside' of one of the mountains; for God created Adam and Eve, on a mountain, and then they descended from it to the plain land.
However, God - be exalted - mentioned, one time, that He created Adam from mud or clay; and another time He said that He created him from earth or soil; because the wet soil or earth can be called mud as can it be called soil."
eanassir, I think you should preface such stories with "Once upon a time", because this story is nothing but a bad fairy tale about cruelty to animals...
Just go back to page 11 and see my first comments and follow them. I am not shifting anything. I proposed my argument and it stand unanswered. The best answer I've gotten was "We don't know but we'll find out". Which not answering my question. Scientist have been attempting to explain origins without God and cannot do so without a supernatural event. No link you have given has provided sufficient evidence against my argument. Natural selection leads to variation within NOT without. It has been well document, yet children are still indoctrinated with this nonsense.
No, you are still falsely using the lack of evidence for abiogenesis to imply that there is none for evolution occurring after that - however the first cell came about. Whatever attitude scientists have or do not have towards God does not discredit the evidence for a development of life (however it got started) over time. That's all I'm arguing and all that evolution theory argues.
Quote:
This also not a sufficient rebuttal. As it stands evolution cannot explain origins therefore it cannot be compared to creation which goes back to the beginning. There is absolutely NO evidence for evolution (I've already defined what evolution I'm talking about see page 11 and follow). I do not have to discredit the "evidence" evolution, because there is NONE. You haven't given me one piece of evidence that natural selection leads to diverse life from single celled organisms. The best article I've been given said "Natural selection did it" but that is not valid evidence. Especially when you consider what natural selection is. It selects what is already available to ensure an organisms survival in its environment. The finished product will have less genetic material to work with than it's predecessor. There is NO new information added. Mutations are not evidence that single celled organisms turned into humans over billions of years. Most mutation are neither harmful nor helpful. Of the remaining mutations the most are harmful.
No, you are doing the same thing. It is simply false -dishonestly false -to claim there in no evidence for evolution just because it does not not have hard evidence for abiogenesis. In fact it does have an explanation but of course that is still hypothetical, which I why I don't present it as 'proof'.
I should also point out out that the claim that genetic information is lost and information cannot be added is a false claim (1) and demonstrably untrue.
Quote:
I'm not repeat a 'false claim'. I am telling you how the geological column came to be. You can Google the history of these concepts if you do not believe me. What I highlighted in bold is just an outright lie. If you go back and look at the history of these concepts you will see that the geological column was invented before and "tried and true method" came to be. These dates have never changed, even with the advent of these methods. I am not saying the methods ar einaccurate. I am saying that the dates have always been the same. How can you be sure that scientist are being objective, they are humans. Biases can exist everywhere. You don't believe me you should study the history of science.
Well.. Isn't that what I'm saying? That the geologic column was the start of the idea that the earth was old and the rocks were old and the the fossils were deemed to be old because they were in the older strata? The dates stayed the same? Even if that's true (I doubt that there hasn't been some refinement) doesn't that just mean they got it right?
Quote:
You don't get it. The dates were surmised and stayed the same even with the arrival of radiometric dating, and they still teach the geologic column in schools even though in only exists in textbooks. Textbooks still teach the fossils are dated by rock and rock by fossils to this day (it's called relative dating).
Nonsense. I already explained and YOU already explained that the age of rocks was estimated to be old and the fossils thought to be old because they were in rocks, NOT the rocks old because they had fossils in them. The dating methods then gave reliable dates for the rocks. Why wouldn't they teach the geologic column in the schools since it is evidently correct? Relative dating is ok now that we know the dates of some fossils (2), just as we can date foundations by the pottery found in it, but FIRST the dates of the pottery had to be determined by other means.
(1) The prophet talkorigins saith:
Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
(2) I just love footnotes. In fact I'm sure that newly discovered fossil -types have to be dated according to the age of the rock they are found in.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-22-2012 at 06:31 AM..
Going on a bit further with relative stratigraphy, I can see why you are overdrawing the idea to suppose that fossils originally suggested the date of the rocks which were then used to date the fossils 9which would be a circular argument and thus, false). In fact the idea that the earth was old and rocks were old had been raised back in the 18th century but it was:
"The Scottish naturalist, James Hutton, argued against the theory of Neptunism. Hutton proposed the theory of Plutonism; the Earth formed through the gradual solidification of a molten mass at a slow rate by the same processes that occurred throughout history and continues in present day. This led him to the conclusion that the Earth was immeasurably old and could not possibly fit within the limits of the inferences from the Bible. Plutonists believed that volcanic processes were the chief agent in rock formation, not water from a Great Flood.[27]
The Neptunists and Plutonists supplied necessary data to help complete the stratigraphical column in the early 19th century. The stratigraphical column can be defined as “the sequence of rock formations arranged according to their order of formation in time.”
At the same time it was noted that particular types of fossils occurred in particular strata so the correlation implied that fossils were old and shared the same sequence of laying down in strata as did the strata.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bar'el
I am aware that things change within science all the time. Why do they change? If aspects are subject to change at any time then how can you say something is true? Truth is not relative it is absolute. Which makes it strange that they even classify radiometric dating as absolute, even though it is subject to "fine tuning".
To this and you other post crowing that no-one can explain how life came from a cell (or a cell came from nothing, depending on which goal we aim at - so you can get in the other one and claim 'you missed') I could (in fact I might) post the case for abiogenesis if I thought you'd listen, There is, as I say, an explanation and some lab work and circumstantial evidence, but I'm sure you would dismiss it as guesswork, a lie invented by godless scientists just doing it for the money or demand to know who made the atoms in the first place. I'm reluctant also to do the work as i'm sure there would be the response that I 'couldn't 'prove it' and thus somehow everything to do with evolution was a fairy tale.
As to change, science is always open to new information - but (as you observed with the geologic column) it doesn't basically alter tried and tested information, because that is sound. Kepler 'changed' the copernican system by showing that planetary orbits are elleiptical, not circular, but that doesn't discredit Copernicus, not does the discovery that atoms are a cloud rather than a solar - system discredit the dicovery of atomic structure, not Einstein discredit Newton. That said, if anything in science turned out to be proven wrong it would be dropped. That is why science is reliable, because it will change its ideas when they are proven and that's its strength, not its weakness.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-22-2012 at 06:34 AM..
Could you please clarify your meaning? How is man going to evolve from now until we are changed into spirits?
Do you mean we are going to just keep evolving the old fashion way. Natural selection?
Btw. If I missed your meaning from an earlier post please understand there is a lot of posts here with alot of information.
Thank You.
We are going to continue to evolve consciously, educationally, technically, and emotionally. None of which has to do with the physical; we no longer need to evolve physically.
We are going to continue to evolve consciously, educationally, technically, and emotionally. None of which has to do with the physical; we no longer need to evolve physically.
Need has nothing to do with it...We do continue to evolve physically....I'd post proof of this, but you would just either disagree or ignore it...It's too bad that your mind has some kind of god filter on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't that what I'm saying? That the geologic column was the start of the idea that the earth was old and the rocks were old and the the fossils were deemed to be old because they were in the older strata? The dates stayed the same? Even if that's true (I doubt that there hasn't been some refinement) doesn't that just mean they got it right?
