If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[Critical_Thinker]

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:

I am asking if you know of any observed experiments or observed natural occurrences where a species changed to obtain different traits, other than a fly with additional useless wings or legs or a different color or when two different dogs interbreed the offspring does not look like either parent. I am referring to a creature having one type of body plan (appearance) that changed to a different body plan, such as a fly’s offspring (over many generations) looking something like a mosquito or a spider (they are all arthropods), or perhaps a rabbit, over many generations, changing to appear to look something like a raccoon (both mammals).

Yes, fossils. Fossils are observations.

Do you know of any examples of creatures that appear to be in the process of forming new features or traits? If so, would you direct to the literature? I would prefer something other than fruit fly experiments that produced other types of flies. I believe Goat (12-14-2011) already provided information on fruit flies.

Everything is. A good example are ring species.

I have read a great deal of information provided by talkOrigins.org. I too agree that science works, that is, the type of science that deals with facts. I believe in many theories that explain certain things in our world, such as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. The difference between the theory that Copernicus and Galileo proposed was about things that exist in the present. The Theory of Evolution involves things that occurred in the unobserved past.

Everything occurs in the past, and we do not need to sit and watch something to call it "observational". If I put bacteria on a plate with antibiotics on it and come back the next day am I wrong to conclude the antibiotics killed the bacteria even though I didnt spend 20 hours watching them?

If I were to go to the site where Mt. Saint Helens erupted and saw an area where a bunch of trees were knocked down and burnt to a crisp am I wrong for saying the volcano didnt do it since I did not witness those exact trees falling down?

See, with observational science, we examine things and how they work in the here and now. From this, we can extrapolate how thing worked in the past or will work in the future. Then we also use statistical analysis to validate our assumption.

Evolution does not totally believe in facts. Some conclusions are assumed where evidence has not been obtained. Conclusions are reached as a result of the evidence. The evidence needs to be interpreted.

An assumption is a baseless conclusion. Evolution makes no assumptions. Everything is based in evidence. As for interpretation, all evidence is interpreted so that is a moot point.

Just because some creatures have similar bodies and existed around the same time does not necessarily indicate that one evolved from the other. It could and it could not. It is debatable, as it is not a proven fact. I would need to see a sequence of fossils that represented a steady progression. It is a fact in the minds of those who are convinced evolution accounts for every living thing in existence.

This is only true if you do not have a solid understand of science and epistemology and have had access to the body of knowledge out there.

c0nc0rdance on youtube has a good video:

Many people seem to only mention evidence that would support this view. No one seems to be conducting experiments today to falsify the theory of evolution, mainly because I suppose that evolution (all aspects) is now assumed to be true. The assumption is that small changes (micro-evolution) gradually lead to major changes (macro-evolution). Mutations may change a trait in an organism, but how far could these changes go?

Here is the thing, if I assume evolution is true, and it is not, my research will not work.
Same goes for gravity. Do you see people trying to "falsify" gravity? No. We know it is true.

What we DO see is the details being worked out. These theories are tested, albeit indirectly, by every experiment which relies on their truth.

Mutations, gene flow, and sex are the main causes of change in a creature. Gene flow and sex components of evolution changes are natural and could cause slight changes in a species. Dogs, horses, and people, vary in size and appearance, and also some creatures have been artificially bred (artificial selection), but they are still dogs, horses, and humans. Mutations are not so normal (natural), although sun radiation may cause a mutation to a gene.

I believed I previously showed that there are enough mutations in the human population to totally replace the genome in just over 1 generation time.

The “Introduction to Evolution� Berkeley web site also mentions:
“Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are ‘naturally-occurring.’ For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation…�

I do not know for sure, but I believe that possibly the above statement may be referring to point mutations (the result of what happens when a single chemical ‘letter’ [A, G, C, T?] in the DNA sequence is changed as a result of heat, chemicals, or radiation.) If this is true, I am not sure whether these types of mutations would be effective enough to cause any noticeable changes, even if multiple small mutations occurred over multiple of generations. Would the mutations be related in any way to a creature to cause a substantial change?

No, for a couple reasons. First, the error can be simply due to imperfect replication. It doesnt require heat, radiation, or chemicals. Heat and radiation tend to alter the genome BEFORE replication. Secondly, single base pair alterations have been know to have really LARGE effect and little to NO effect. So I wouldnt make assumptions without first examining the evidence.

Would exposure to chemicals and radiation ever be beneficial to an organism? I suppose if only a very slight exposure occurred that only a minor change or changes might occur, however, I would say that the majority of exposure to chemicals and radiation would prove to be detrimental (harmful) rather than beneficial (advantageous).

Ever ate a ruby-red grapefruit? that is a byproduct of forced mutation. Before genetic modification, crops were experimentally planted around a radiation source to hope for beneficial mutations. Turns out it actually worked!

Additionally, I did some undergrad research on the chemical mutagenesis of pine and ginkgo pollen and I was able to get ginkgo pollen which was longer lived and produced superior pollen tube development through chemical mutation.

The last paragraph quoted above also mentioned that a cell has the ability to repair DNA.

I read elsewhere that “As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence [A, G, C, T?] of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.�

Do you believe the above explanation of how the DNA repair system works is accurate? If so, do you know how this process could have developed? What would have been its purpose while it was in the process of developing into the DNA repair system?

Yes and yes. The DNA repair system, like everything else is biology, is "obvious". The same enzyme which ADDS the bases in replication ALSO does the proofreading (DNA Polymerase). So it doesnt take much tinkering to modify an already existing protein to have a job similar to the one it already does.

As suggested before, while I always encourage people to ask questions, it would be difficult for any of us to give it to you do to the time and format available here. So I would suggest such broad and content heavy questions like this be answered by yourself. I think most of us are ok with providing sources, but we cant teach you genetics! Sorry, I hope this doesnt come across as "jerky".

vvv Critical_Thinker 01-10-2012 post vvvv:
Hi nygreenguy. I really appreciate all your correspondence. You have been very helpful. Would you explain how to use the quote system on this web site properly?

nygreenguy, on 1/6/2012 you stated: “As suggested before, while I always encourage people to ask questions, it would be difficult for any of us to give it to you do to the time and format available here. So I would suggest such broad and content heavy questions like this be answered by yourself. I think most of us are ok with providing sources, but we cant teach you genetics!�

I really do not expect you to teach me genetics. What I was hoping for were some references related to my questions and comments to read. If you would suggest some good reading material, such as web sites, journals, or even a few good reliable textbooks, I would appreciate it. As I mentioned previously, I am unable to locate reading material that address the issues I presented. I thought that since you know a great deal about evolution that you would know some good reading materials related to the comments I made. I suppose that if no documents exist that are related to my comments and questions (although I find this difficult to believe), then I would have to assume (I hate to assume) that evolutionists are not able to adequately explain the issues I presented.

---

As I [critical_thinker] mentioned on 1/5/2012:
The “Land Animals to Aquatic Mammals� discussed on the Nova web site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/) is also debatable. This web site states that: “Ambulocetus … toes were webbed like those of modern mammals adapted for swimming.�

Do you know how paleontologists came to the conclusion that Ambulocetus had webbed feet? If Ambulocetus did not have webbed feet, most likely it was not a forerunner to the whale, and an intermediate would still need to be found that would link land mammals to sea creatures.

---

On 12/31/2011 when I posted: “Anchiornis, being a reptile, most likely did not have a breathing system necessary for flight as birds have (lungs are not usually preserved in fossils). A highly movable hind-limb could not have supported the air sacs that are an essential support for the one-way flow of air through the lungs. With these issues in mind, it is doubtful whether Anchiornis could have been a forerunner to Archaeopteryx or a modern bird.� http://creation.com/anchiornis-huxleyi- ... hered-dino You responded on 1/2/2012 by stating “Once again, you are using really terrible biased, un-academic, deceptive sources which are known for lying...Are you suggesting there are no intermediates between archaeopteryx and true dinosaurs? have you read the info on wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis �

Wikipedia’s assessment is that Anchiornis has a “less flight-adapted profile.� I suppose if this is true, then most likely Anchiornis could not fly. This assessment appears to be in agreement in part with the description from creation.com, in that Anchiornis was not able to fly. What remains questionable is whether Anchiornis had a reptilian type respiratory system or an avian respiratory system.

I read the information in Wikipedia on Anchiornis previously, and I did read the description of how similar Anchiornis is to other fossils, however, there was no mention about how this creature may have breathed or what type of lungs it may have had in order to have evolved from a reptile that did not fly and most likely had reptilian lungs. Since Wikipedia does mention that Anchiornis had large wings and also had feathers, and stated that: “The authors initially speculated that it would have been possible for Anchiornis to fly or glide� I must admit, most likely it would only be speculation for anyone to say what type of breathing system Anchiornis had or whether it had the ability to fly.

However, since Wikipedia states “[Anchiornis is] important in filling a gap in the transition between the body plans of avian birds and non-avian dinosaurs [reptiles],� however, without knowing what type of respiratory system this creature had, it would speculation to make this claim. If a reptile evolved into a bird, then at some point the reptile respiratory system needed to change to an avian respiratory system. Is there any idea when this change began? How could a reptile respiratory system have changed into an avian respiratory system?

I realize that soft tissue (including lungs) do not preserve well in fossils, however, without knowing the full anatomy of a creature, it is difficult to determine conclusively how one could be related to the other. For me, circumstantial evidence is not sufficient, as I do not wish to make any assumptions, even if the evidence appears to be convincing.

---

When I asked on 1/2/2012: “Would exposure to chemicals and radiation ever be beneficial to an organism? I suppose if only a very slight exposure occurred that only a minor change or changes might occur, however, I would say that the majority of exposure to chemicals and radiation would prove to be detrimental (harmful) rather than beneficial (advantageous).� You responded on 1/6/2012 by stating: “Ever ate a ruby-red grapefruit? that is a byproduct of forced mutation. Before genetic modification, crops were experimentally planted around a radiation source to hope for beneficial mutations. Turns out it actually worked! Additionally, I did some undergrad research on the chemical mutagenesis of pine and ginkgo pollen and I was able to get ginkgo pollen which was longer lived and produced superior pollen tube development through chemical mutation.�

Although plants and animals do have the same types of cells, I was hoping you could have provided some information about the results of animals having been exposed to radiation rather than plants, as plants do not possess as many organs as animals have. What would the same amount of radiation that was used to produce ruby-red grapefruit do to the offspring of an animal, perhaps a fruit fly or a larger animal such as a rabbit?

---

When I wrote on 1/2/2012: “I am asking if you know of any observed experiments or observed natural occurrences where a species changed to obtain different traits, other than a fly with additional useless wings or legs or a different color or when two different dogs interbreed the offspring does not look like either parent. I am referring to a creature having one type of body plan (appearance) that changed to a different body plan, such as a fly’s offspring (over many generations) looking something like a mosquito or a spider (they are all arthropods), or perhaps a rabbit, over many generations, changing to appear to look something like a raccoon (both mammals).� You responded on 1/6/2012 by stating: “Yes, fossils. Fossils are observations.� I was referring to animals that are living and still have flesh and can be observed in action. After all, if evolution still continues today (why would we think otherwise?), we should be observing multiples of animals in the process of forming new traits, such as a reptile in the process of developing wings from forelimbs, reptiles in the process of changing from scales to hair, land animals in the process of developing webbed feet, etc.

When I asked on 1/2/2012: “Do you know of any examples of creatures that appear to be in the process of forming new features or traits? If so, would you direct to the literature? I would prefer something other than fruit fly experiments that produced other types of flies. I believe Goat (12-14-2011) already provided information on fruit flies.� You responded on 1/6/2012 by stating: “Everything is. A good example are ring species.� I checked out the ring species that you suggested. The definition of a ring species I found is: “In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two ‘end’ populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each ‘linked’ species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, ‘end’ populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a ‘ring’.� (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)

Multiple forms of salamanders and sea gulls are known to illustrate the concept of ring species. Since these sea gulls are able to interbreed, in addition to nature changes of offspring, their offspring could result in different types of sea gulls. Could the changes in these creatures be the result of genes being switched on or off rather than by mutations?

Just as the illustration of fruit flies, the discussion of ring species salamanders, although different species of salamanders, are still salamanders. The examples of ring species, such as salamanders and sea gulls, appears to illustrate a very natural process that occurs in nature through breeding rather than through mutations. Creatures tend to develop new traits and appearances (micro evolution), however, the changes do not appear to result in a major change (macro evolution). In the case of the ring species salamanders, generally speaking, the salamanders are still salamanders, they never became anything but a salamander. In the case of the ring species sea gulls, generally speaking, the sea gulls are still sea gulls, they never became anything but a sea gulls.

I was hoping for an example of a creature that currently exists that is in the process of becoming a creature with a different body type, such as a reptile in the process changing their forelimbs into wings or a reptile with scales in the process of developing hair, such as is found in most mammals, or a land animal in the process of growing webbed feet.

---

When I made the statement on 1/2/2012: “Evolution does not totally believe in facts. Some conclusions are assumed where evidence has not been obtained. Conclusions are reached as a result of the evidence. The evidence needs to be interpreted.� You responded on 1/6/2012: “An assumption is a baseless conclusion. Evolution makes no assumptions. Everything is based in evidence. As for interpretation, all evidence is interpreted so that is a moot point.� What I was referring to was that not every aspect of evolution has been explained. If there is no explanation as to how an amphibian reproductive system could have changed to a reptilian reproductive system, how a reptilian reproductive system could have changed to a mammalian reproductive system, how a reptilian 3-chambered heart could have changed to a 4-chambered mammalian heart, how a reptilian respiratory system could have changed to an avian respiratory system, then I would suppose that there is currently no explanation as to how the differences may have developed and certain assumptions would therefore have been made for one to believe that one evolved from the other. Do you know how these changes could have occurred? I asked this before but have not yet received a response on this. Also, science seems to assume that life began from chemicals that were present during an early Earth. This is further discussed in the next section, “Origin of Life on Earth.�

---

Origin of Life on Earth

It has been claimed that life originated by chemicals that existed on Earth along with the Earth’s environment. Some may claim that the study of the origins of life are not part of the theory of evolution because origins deals with chemistry rather than biology, however, I disagree. Even Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1871, discussed how he believed life may have originated on Earth: “It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.�

Charles Darwin was not the only evolutionist to discuss the possibility that life may have began in a warm pond. Even today, some still discuss the same ideas: “How do you go from some warm, little pond on a primordial Earth that has amino acids, sugars, fatty acids just sort of floating around in the environment to something in which nucleic acids are actually directing proteins to make the membranes of the cell?� (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... -life.html).

Many assume that live evolved from chemicals, as I have read many that state that even though it is not known for sure how life began on Earth, we know it happened because we are here. Paleontologist Andrew Knoll said: “We know that it [that life originated from non-living chemicals] happened, so it's possible.� (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... begin.html)

I have already read much information regarding Dr. Craig Venter’s research and I do not believe that he created life in the laboratory, as some claim: “[Dr. Craig Venter and his team] have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment…�
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... form/print

Although I do believe Dr. Venter’s experiments are a great accomplishment, I do not believe that he actually created life in the laboratory, nor do I believe that he actually claims that he had, although… “During a press conference, Dr. Venter stated, ‘the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.’� (http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress ... life-form/)

In a critical analysis of Dr. Venter’s experiment is was stated: “Dr. Venter borrowed an already functional machinery, he used existing information from another cell to modify it, then synthesizing DNA with this information, joined the molecule despite having chemical and physical difficulties which required yeast to help. The research, though a great scientific feat unto itself, is not a man-made genome that is technically artificial. Synthetic, involves designed from scratch, not copied from a natural genome… the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials… What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on a PC — and then saying you have created a computer. It’s not trivial, but it is utterly absurd the claims that are being made about it.
http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress ... life-form/

Do you believe that Dr. Venter and his team actually created live in the laboratory? If so, do you believe it illustrates how life could have originated on the Earth?

Do you know of any research that has shed more light on how life could have originated on this plant?

---

vvv Critical_ThinkerPost on 12/31/2011 in part vvvv

When I presented some questions as to how the giraffe’s neck could have developed through many small mutations that may or may not appear in every new offspring (due to apparently random genes taken from its father and mother – no blending of traits) and how if a new trait could have been eliminated if it proved to be detrimental, especially during its early stages of its development, you responded by asking: “what about the part where it KEEPS traits?�

My view is that unless a mutation resulted in some useful function or perhaps a neutral function, such as in the case where a huge dinosaur had extremely small arms and legs for its body size, it would cause the deformed creature to be eliminated. In the example of a dinosaur hand developing into a bird wing, for this to have occurred by mutation and natural selection, the creature obviously continued to exist in spite of this seemingly useless (half-hand/half-wing) trait. I realize that some believe that a deformed half-hand/half-wing might have been useful in keeping the creature warm or perhaps the deformed half-hand/half-wing might have been used to fend off would be predators. I believe that the small arms of the theropod saurischian dinosaur that is supposed to have evolved into a modern bird may have been useful for some purpose that may never be known since all of these dinosaurs became extinct and their actual movements cannot be studied.

Nygreenguy, regarding my 12/31/2011 post, you mentioned on 1/2/2012 that you would provide information on giraffes later. (Just a reminder in case you have forgotten. We have discussed so many topics it is sometimes hard to keep track of them all.)

[nygreenguy mentioned on 12/18/2011 that the giraffe’s neck was the result of co-evolution (“Its relative fitness is what drives the coevolution of the traits.�), to which I replied on 12/31/2011:

It is doubtful to me that co-evolution, that is, more than one type of evolution could be conducted simultaneously on one type of creature, that would have resulted in a positive gain, especially how you are applying the concept to a single creature rather than as it is usually applied to a creature evolving that the same time as another complementary organism evolved, such as a plant.

TheFreeDictionary.com specifies co-evolution as: “The evolution of two or more species that interact closely with one another, with each species adapting to changes in the other.� (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coevolution)

Another definition of co-evolution is: “a change in the genetic composition of one species (or group) in response to a genetic change in another� (http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/2 ... ution.HTML).

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines co-evolution as: “the process of reciprocal evolutionary change that occurs between pairs of species or among groups of species as they interact with one another.� (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... oevolution)

One source (http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/ ... ution.html) uses the evolution of the horse and grass leaves as an example of co-evolution: “Horses once browsed soft leafy bushes, when they first evolved around 60 Ma. But [as] the Earth's climate cooled, and [then] woodland[s] gave way to open grassland with scattered trees. Now some horses began to graze in open country, and that changed everything. The grasses responded to grazing by evolving little silica pieces in their leaves (phytoliths) that were essentially jagged little grains of sand. Over time, they wore away the dentine of the horse teeth. Once their teeth wore down, they could no longer eat. So the horses with more enamel and longer teeth survived better, and this co-evolution of phytoliths and horse teeth continued for millions of years, drastically altering horse morphology as they continued this "arms race" against the grasses. As horses evolved larger, longer teeth with more enamel, they had to have bigger jaws to place the teeth in, and larger muscles for chewing. The horse face grew longer and stronger. Also, the horses out in the plain could not hide easily, so the taller, faster ones survived and reproduced better than the shorter, slower ones. The ‘evolution of the horse’ involved a many-million year increase in size, in running ability, and in its chewing capacity.� http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/ ... ution.html)

The article above does not specifically mention that the horse grew longer teeth as a result of a need, however, I would like to make it clear that I do not believe horses deliberately grew longer teeth with more enamel in order to survive. Changes (new traits) could remain in a creature if the new trait proved to be advantageous and then natural selection would allow the trait to continue. What would have happened if the horses’ teeth continued to grow longer and longer? What caused the teeth to stop growing?

I read elsewhere that the fossil record does not show a gradual progression of the horse. Horses did not evolve as mutations gradually changed its traits. Instead, scientists have found genetic information in horses that may have been hidden in early horses that were later activated (expressed) in modern horses. This genetic information may have controlling or regulatory genes that switch other genes ‘on’ or ‘off.’ That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature. This would enable very rapid changes. It is possible that the body size, including toe size, and tooth shape of horses, were controlled by regulatory genes. Scientists have found that a single protein, called BMP-4, prevents the gene that causes molars (back grinding teeth) to form, so incisors (cutting teeth) can grow instead. Without this protein no incisors will grow. (http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/c ... iew/55/65/ and http://www.equest4truth.com/eo_nonevolution.html).

Do you believe the information above is possible (ignore the source)?
---

I also have doubts about how a reptile could have evolved into a mammal, especially when considering that reptiles lay eggs and mammals give live births.

How could a reptile that lays eggs then gradually change into a creature that carries its young inside its body until the offspring is born?

I am also not convinced that an amphibian could have evolved into a reptile, especially with the difficulty of how an amphibian egg could evolve into a reptilian egg.

For this transition to have occurred (an amphibian egg evolving into a reptilian egg), at least eight quite different changes needed to be combined to make the reptilian type amniotic egg possible.

[Please refer to my (Critical_Thinker) 12/31/2011 post for a listing of 8 differences between an amphibian egg and a reptilian type egg.]

The problem of the origin of the amniotic system is even more questionable considering that the basic problem is that amphibian eggs need water, whereas reptilian eggs have amniotic fluid, which eliminates their need for water. Some amphibian eggs have a tough gelatinous skin that will stand a certain degree of drought, while others are live bearing. Certain amphibians are therefore quite independent of water for reproduction. How the heart and aortic arches of an amphibian could have gradually converted to the reptilian and mammalian type is also questionable.

How do you suppose the amphibian egg system could have evolved into the reptile egg system?

It is doubtful whether natural selection and random mutations have the ability to produce such changes. Many necessary anatomical changes would have to take place in a coordinated fashion. Transforming a reptile to a mammal requires the step-by-step conversion of many, separate physiological systems. It requires a coordinated change in the respiratory, circulatory, and reproductive systems, plus other changes as well. All of the intermediate organ systems must work, and in many cases, they must work together. Since vital organs are vital to the survival of an animal, every temporary loss of an organ could or would most likely result in the death of the transitional animal forms.

How do you suppose a creature could have survived, for example, if its heart were slowing evolving into a different type of heart?

[Please refer to my (Critical_Thinker) 12/31/2011 post for a listing of the 4 processes that need to occur for a three-chambered heart to change into a four-chambered heart]

Considering the uniqueness of the avian lung, respiratory system, the air sac system and uniquely division of the body cavity into several compressible compartments, it is difficult to comprehend how a bird could have evolved from a reptile. It is understood that some reptiles also have air sacs, the structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory system is quite unique to birds.

No lung in any other vertebrate species (reptile or mammal) is known to be anything like the avian system. How such a very different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate lung is very difficult to conceive, especially when the respiratory system functioning is critical to the life of the creature (a new born) and any slightest malfunction would lead to certain death within minutes of attempting to breathe with a respiratory system that is in the process of developing into a different system. Neither mutations nor natural selection works toward any goal, not even an improved respiratory system, so any mutations would cause an uncertain change. At some point during the change the respiratory system would no longer be functional or function as needed to survive. Multiple changes may not occur in a new born, but a new born might be born with a modified system that is either non-functional or not sufficient to sustain life. If the parent(s) with the latest change were not able to have offspring that survived, the mutation would not continue in the species.

Some may theorize that avian lungs could have developed before reptiles began to fly or possibly during the same time when wings with feathers were developing, but this is doubtful. This concept does not seem plausible because the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system (which permeates it) and the air sac system (which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply) are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.

The unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. First, the avian lung is fixed to the body wall and because of this cannot expand in volume. Second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as it does in all other vertebrates (reptiles and mammals) after birth. In birds, aeration of the lungs must occur gradually and starts three to four days before hatching with a filling of the main bronchi, air sacs and parabronchi with air.

Only after the main air ducts are already filled with air does the final development of the lungs, and particularly the growth of the air capillary network, take place. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species (reptiles and mammals). As the air capillaries grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled either with air or fluid, which is later absorbed into the blood capillaries. Explaining how such an intricate and highly specialized system of correlated adaptations could have been achieved gradually through perfectly functional intermediates seems impossible.

I asked previously how a reptile lung could have evolved into a bird lung, however you did not provide an explanation of how this might have been accomplished. How do you believe a reptile lung could have gradually developed into a bird type lung?

Because mutations do not involve any intelligence, that is, being unguided, it does not steadily obtain an improvement that works towards a goal (natural selection weeds out the unfit or less fit), it is difficult to comprehend how a reptile could have eventually, gradually, have evolved into a mammal, even with millions of years of evolution. Since mutations are non-directional and natural selection only selects those creatures that are best fit to survive, it is doubtful to me how this could have been accomplished by natural means. Mammals have a number of unique features which are not found in any other group of organisms.

[Please refer to my (Critical_Thinker) 12/31/2011 post for a listing of 9 traits that are found in mammals that are not found in any other group of organisms.]

Any transition from a reptile to a mammal would require the development of completely new organ systems. Transforming the reproductive system, for example, is not just a question of changing where the eggs grow (whether inside or outside of the mother). It also requires the development of completely new organs like the placenta and mammary glands. [Without soft tissue to examine, it cannot be known for sure which creature is related to which creature. I believe that science should remember the claim made previously that the front fins of the Coelacanth fish were actually in the process of developing into legs suitable for land. When a live Coelacanth was discovered in1938, the assumptions were proven wrong. I am afraid this may continue to occur, especially with the Tiktaalik fossil recently discovered.]

These are the main reasons why I do not believe an amphibian evolved into a reptile or that a reptile evolved into a bird or a mammal.

^^^ Critical_Thinker 12/31/2011 Post in part ^^^

^^^Critical_Thinker 01-10-2012 post ^^^

[TheJackelantern]

the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials…

Right here is your problem... They are all still just atoms.. Please read my post above and understand that raw materials can involve using what we have available. What is relevant is that the synthetic life is actually not naturally occurring life. If you want a good example of evolution, you can look at nylon eating bacteria.

As far as not believing evolution.. It seems you did a good job of ignoring genetics and focused purely on fossil data. Fossil data will never be complete for obvious reasons. Creationists love this because they can play the "GOD of the GAPS" game. But they get pretty upset when we can play that same game in relation to creationism to which they have literally zero evidence for.

wikipedia’s assessment is that Anchiornis has a “less flight-adapted profile.� I suppose if this is true, then most likely Anchiornis could not fly.

Wrong.. A clumsy flier doesn't mean something can't fly. And creation.com is a terrible source of information. Creation.com = pseudoscience. Hence, is a jumbo jet as agile as a fighter jet? Surely one is more adapted profile right? So it doesn't surprise me that you leave this out, this to which is just a comparison to a more adapted cousin:

As in other early paravians such as Microraptor, Anchiornis had large wings, made up of pennaceous flight feathers attached to the arm and hand (as in modern birds) as well as flight feathers on the hind legs, forming an arrangement of fore and hind wings. The forewing of Anchiornis was composed of 11 primary feathers and 10 secondary feathers. Unlike Microraptor, the primary feathers in Anchiornis were about as long as the secondaries and formed a more rounded wing, with curved but symmetrical central vanes, a small and thin relative size, and rounded tips, all indicating poorer aerodynamic ability compared to its later relative.

This doesn't coincide at all with creation.com. And you do realize there are birds in this world that do not fly right?

however, there was no mention about how this creature may have breathed or what type of lungs it may have had in order to have evolved from a reptile that did not fly and most likely had reptilian lungs.

Now you are moving the goal post. Firstly, the animal in question is warm blooded.. Like what you find in common modern birds and animals. And their dinosaur roots.



Fore example we can learn a lot about an animal by what it's life was like just by understanding things like blood vessels in bones. What we find are exactly what we find in modern birds and animals.. Their exact anatomy in terms of lungs ect will require certain assumptions, but we follow the evidence vs stopping and saying "GOD DONE IT"... :/

however, without knowing what type of respiratory system this creature had, it would speculation to make this claim.

You would know this if you understood how they study bones.

If a reptile evolved into a bird, then at some point the reptile respiratory system needed to change to an avian respiratory system.

Are you arguing cold blooded or warm blooded? And I do believe that it's obvious that evolution had to have taken. You're stating a obvious. So what is your evidence to prove it was created out of thin air via magic wand? Remember, this is the same bible that tells us we are all dirt men made of dirt when we are actually 75% water molecules and mostly oxygen by mass. So perhaps you can clarify for us, because evolution DONE IT giving the evidence we have.

I realize that soft tissue (including lungs) do not preserve well in fossils, however, without knowing the full anatomy of a creature, it is difficult to determine conclusively how one could be related to the other. For me, circumstantial evidence is not sufficient, as I do not wish to make any assumptions, even if the evidence appears to be convincing.

Bones can tell you a lot more than you think they can.. But I think you realize that we are not going to get all the answers without the possibility of cloning some into existence. However, this is not an argument for creationism. In fact, it's not even evidence for creationism.

Although plants and animals do have the same types of cells, I was hoping you could have provided some information about the results of animals having been exposed to radiation rather than plants, as plants do not possess as many organs as animals have. What would the same amount of radiation that was used to produce ruby-red grapefruit do to the offspring of an animal, perhaps a fruit fly or a larger animal such as a rabbit?

How about you experiment and find out? Oh, Creationists don't do that!.. Making up an experiment off the top of your head and assuming someone is going to plop down the results in front of you is a bit silly.

Multiple forms of salamanders and sea gulls are known to illustrate the concept of ring species. Since these sea gulls are able to interbreed, in addition to nature changes of offspring, their offspring could result in different types of sea gulls. Could the changes in these creatures be the result of genes being switched on or off rather than by mutations?

Both could happen. There are also lungless salamanders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungless_salamander
The Plethodontidae, or Lungless salamanders, are a family of salamanders. Most species are native to the western hemisphere, from British Columbia to Brazil, although a few species are found in Sardinia, Europe south of the Alps, and South Korea. In terms of number of species, they are by far the largest group of salamanders.[1]

And, you need to look up speciation and genetic differences to where a species splits and can no longer interbreed. Then fast forward the clock a million years and see what happens.. Types of birds would range greatly.. Though I see you going down the fallacious Kinds Argument to which entirely ignores genetics. And yep, you display your ignorance of what evolution is below:

Just as the illustration of fruit flies, the discussion of ring species salamanders, although different species of salamanders, are still salamanders.

News flash... Evolution doesn't state that salamanders will turn into fruit flies or birds. If you don't understand evolution, please see my post above. And your argument is easily debunked btw.. Hence, under your logic, I can make the claim that all living things are of one kind. Carbon based life forms... Goal post moving is Fun stuff! ..

The examples of ring species, such as salamanders and sea gulls, appears to illustrate a very natural process that occurs in nature through breeding rather than through mutations

This is like saying nothing changed in the genetics, or lungless salamanders are lies.. It's like you don't even comprehend the fail of your argument here. Yeah, the act of sex alters species!???? Oh wait, what does sex involve?.. Possible genetic differentiation and drift.. Fun stuff! ..

Creatures tend to develop new traits and appearances (micro evolution), however, the changes do not appear to result in a major change (macro evolution).

Your ignorance between the two is astounding. They are the same! Exactly the same mechanism and process! The only difference is time scale... Macro evolution being lots of micro evolutionary changes over time. Please see the nice little video I posted for you in my previous post. Macro evolution is where you can have speciation over time where genetic difference prevents interbreeding. Those split species go on and further evolve to which could lead to new species and eventually a species that doesn't look much like the species it derived from.

I was hoping for an example of a creature that currently exists that is in the process of becoming a creature with a different body type, such as a reptile in the process changing their forelimbs into wings or a reptile with scales in the process of developing hair, such as is found in most mammals, or a land animal in the process of growing webbed feet.

It seems you think evolution takes 1 day or something. Though lungless salamanders ought to be a big clue.., have fun waiting.. Asking for something that won't happen in multi-cellular organisms within the time scale of your life is just playing game of intentional ignorance. Here is something... How about waiting for a new animal with a new body type to magically appear on your desk before your very eyes? That should happen instantly right? How about recording your GOD actually in the process of making a new species. Funny how that just happens in the bushes according creationists.

So I don't even need go further with your post, but I will for the hell of it. You have already shown me that you have no conceptual clue as to what evolution is, or how it works. But don't you worry, man is recoding how species are evolving in real time now ... Why do you think there is such a great push to bring down science in America by Creationist nut cases?

Do you know how these changes could have occurred?

Again learn genetics and biochemistry. At least understand that life is an electromagnetic phenomenon, or take the time to understand self-organization in dealing with such complex adaptive systems. There is a boat load of information in my own post above. And worst yet, your argument offers nothing in regards to "Knowing" how these changes occur.

Also, science seems to assume that life began from chemicals that were present during an early Earth

Face palm! Apposed to being dirt people your claims? Oh that wasn't a fail!.. Do you even know what the human body is made of? Well, we aren't dirt people!:

most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon, the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

Reference: H. A. Harper, V. W. Rodwell, P. A. Mayes, Review of Physiological Chemistry, 16th ed., Lange Medical Publications, Los Altos, California 1977.

Suggested Reading

Chemistry 101 Index
How Things Work
Periodic Table of the Elements

Related Articles

Chemical Composition of the Human Body

The human body by mass is mostly oxygen.. Water for example is oxygen and hydrogen to which are the most common gasses in the universe. We are far from "Dirt people" you creationists think we are. Oh wait, that part of the bible is correct now is it? Dammit!, so much for the creationist theory on our creation.

we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.�

Try an ocean, or deep sea vents.. Do do realize that some living organisms feed off of radiation right? In fact, where there is uranium, volcanic activity, and water there is a good chance of life.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/e ... fm?id=9384

Abstract:

Microbes that live off radiation have been discovered several kilometers below ground, microbiologist Tullis Onstott of Princeton University announced at a gathering of the American Geophysical Union. The microorganisms make their homes in water squeezed within rock. "It's a completely novel system for supporting life," commented deep-sea microbiologist John Baross. "Anywhere you have a crust with uranium and water in it, you have the potential for life," claimed Onstott. Such conditions might be found under the surface of Mars. The two researchers were quoted in a report in Nature Science Update. Determining the range of conditions where life can exist is a major thrust of astrobiology.

Such extreme organisms tell us that for life to start, conditions don't need to be perfect, or even require a sunny 70 degree day. We also have this:

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/e ... m?id=10129

Abstract:

According to a new report, eukaryotic cells resulted from the fusion of genomes from an ancient bacterium and a simpler microbe, Archaea, best known for its ability to withstand extreme temperatures and hostile environments. The researchers estimate that the fusion occurred at least 2 billion years ago.

Archaea are of immense interest to astrobiologists who study extremophiles. Determining what enables these microbes to thrive under extreme conditions may help scientists understand how life could survive in harsh environments on other planets. The new research also sheds light on the evolution of life on our own planet. The development of eukaryotic cells allowed for the evolution of multi-cellular organisms, which was a major event in the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem.

We also get the water bear to which can survive the vacuum of space!:

Tardigrades (commonly known as water bears or moss piglets)[2] form the phylum Tardigrada, part of the superphylum Ecdysozoa. They are microscopic, water-dwelling, segmented animals with eight legs. Tardigrades were first described by Johann August Ephraim Goeze in 1773 (kleiner Wasserbär = little water bear). The name Tardigrada means "slow walker" and was given by Lazzaro Spallanzani in 1777. The name water bear comes from the way they walk, reminiscent of a bear's gait. The biggest adults may reach a body length of 1.5 millimetres (0.059 in), the smallest below 0.1 mm. Freshly hatched larvae may be smaller than 0.05 mm.

Some 1,150 species of tardigrades have been described.[3][4] Tardigrades occur over the entire world, from the high Himalayas[5] (above 6,000 metres (20,000 ft)), to the deep sea (below 4,000 metres (13,000 ft)) and from the polar regions to the equator.

The most convenient place to find tardigrades is on lichens and mosses. Other environments are dunes, beaches, soil, and marine or freshwater sediments, where they may occur quite frequently (up to 25,000 animals per litre). Tardigrades often can be found by soaking a piece of moss in spring water.[6]

Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Some can survive temperatures of close to absolute zero (−273 °C (−459 °F)),[7] temperatures as high as 151 °C (304 °F), 1,000 times more radiation than other animals,[8] and almost a decade without water.[9] Since 2007, tardigrades have also returned alive from studies in which they have been exposed to the vacuum of outer space in low earth orbit.

Your little puddle tree hugging is largely a worthless argument. Especially when volcanic activity likely has to do a lot with how life likely began here on Earth:


Volcanic Gases:

* Volcano gasas, amino acids make peptides:

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22442/

* wiki - Volcano

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22442/

* Volcano Gases - Early Earth:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 5d21a688f8

* volcanoes_work climate_effects *The Haze Effect* {Blocking UV radiation):

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcano ... fects.html

Early Earth Atmosphere Part 2:

Rocks tell of warm Earth:

* http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2 ... eo-62.html

Wiki..Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Atmosphere:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dio ... atmosphere

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phane ... ioxide.png

* Geology.com/nasa - oil-seeps:

http://geology.com/nasa/oil-seeps/

* Mud Volcano oil Discharge:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/28/10/907.abstract

volcanoes-created-much-worlds-oil:

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/pr ... worlds-oil

* Amino acids, oil:

http://www.concord.org/~btinker/workben ... ter_bg.pdf

* Volcanic_life_origin amino acids:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... rigin.html

Oxygenation:

* http://records.viu.ca/~earles/oxygenation-aug01.htm

A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere:

* http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5724/1014

* http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro ... p?id=26507

*http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5724/1014

[TheJackelantern]

In case some one above wants to know of snythetic life from scratch. He or she can visit this link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45963181/ns ... w52O_nvwiU

And it looks like science may have a new universal definition of life to which will unify all the definitions by defining the bare minimum of what life entails to all the definitions:

self-reproduction with variations.

Done in just 3 words. This will include DNA nano robots that can reproduce themselves. But of course fire will always be the controversial player considering life is literally electromagnetic phenomenon just as much as fire is. And fire carries the same characteristics of life... Interesting but not unexpected. "P

[nygreenguy]

Critical_Thinker wrote on 1/2/2012:



vvv Critical_Thinker 01-10-2012 post vvvv:
Hi nygreenguy. I really appreciate all your correspondence. You have been very helpful. Would you explain how to use the quote system on this web site properly?

Sure. First, hit quote on my post to reply. The part most people mess up on is the stuff in the beginning and it looks like this:

So I replaced many of the / with | so you can see the code. So I just delete everything that is NOT bolded. So that is how I get the beginning of the quotes. Then at the end of the statement "web site properly" above, I put closing quote tags: [|quote] (use / instead of |) Then to respond to any paragraph of the person you want to quote, you can just highlight and hit the quote button above.

I really do not expect you to teach me genetics. What I was hoping for were some references related to my questions and comments to read. If you would suggest some good reading material, such as web sites, journals, or even a few good reliable textbooks, I would appreciate it. As I mentioned previously, I am unable to locate reading material that address the issues I presented. I thought that since you know a great deal about evolution that you would know some good reading materials related to the comments I made. I suppose that if no documents exist that are related to my comments and questions (although I find this difficult to believe), then I would have to assume (I hate to assume) that evolutionists are not able to adequately explain the issues I presented.

The information is out there. The only two things I can suggest is talkorigins.org and do a search of the primary literature. You can use databases like google scholar, science direct, scopus, etc..

Now, as for the issue of DNA repair, try youtube. There are lots of videos on/of DNA mutation and repair. That can give you background on how and what the mechanisms of DNA replication and repair are. As for its evolution, same thing. Just look for "DNA repair mechanism evolution" or to be more descriptive you could also add "DNA polymerase".

A google scholar search of "DNA repair mechanism evolution" gives 169,000 hits.

So the material you want is out there, you just have to know how to search, and I understand it is not always easy.

As I [critical_thinker] mentioned on 1/5/2012:
The “Land Animals to Aquatic Mammals� discussed on the Nova web site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/) is also debatable. This web site states that: “Ambulocetus … toes were webbed like those of modern mammals adapted for swimming.�

Do you know how paleontologists came to the conclusion that Ambulocetus had webbed feet? If Ambulocetus did not have webbed feet, most likely it was not a forerunner to the whale, and an intermediate would still need to be found that would link land mammals to sea creatures.

In this statement, once again, you are making claims based on incredulity. You do not know WHAT webbed feed could mean to whale evolution, so you shouldnt make conclusions based upon false premises.
Lets see if these links work for you:
http://www.sciencemag.org.libezproxy2.s ... /210.short
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2401132

On 12/31/2011 when I posted: “Anchiornis, being a reptile, most likely did not have a breathing system necessary for flight as birds have (lungs are not usually preserved in fossils). A highly movable hind-limb could not have supported the air sacs that are an essential support for the one-way flow of air through the lungs. With these issues in mind, it is doubtful whether Anchiornis could have been a forerunner to Archaeopteryx or a modern bird.� http://creation.com/anchiornis-huxleyi- ... hered-dino You responded on 1/2/2012 by stating “Once again, you are using really terrible biased, un-academic, deceptive sources which are known for lying...Are you suggesting there are no intermediates between archaeopteryx and true dinosaurs? have you read the info on wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis �

Im saying I wouldnt believe a word out of that website or any of their publications.

Wikipedia’s assessment is that Anchiornis has a “less flight-adapted profile.� I suppose if this is true, then most likely Anchiornis could not fly. This assessment appears to be in agreement in part with the description from creation.com, in that Anchiornis was not able to fly. What remains questionable is whether Anchiornis had a reptilian type respiratory system or an avian respiratory system.

Anchiornis didn't fly and archaeopteryx most likely did not either. As for evolution of the system, it took me less than 30 seconds to find several relevant articles
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03716.html

However, since Wikipedia states “[Anchiornis is] important in filling a gap in the transition between the body plans of avian birds and non-avian dinosaurs [reptiles],� however, without knowing what type of respiratory system this creature had, it would speculation to make this claim. If a reptile evolved into a bird, then at some point the reptile respiratory system needed to change to an avian respiratory system. Is there any idea when this change began? How could a reptile respiratory system have changed into an avian respiratory system?

See the link above. It also helps to follow their sources and look and see who cited them.

I realize that soft tissue (including lungs) do not preserve well in fossils, however, without knowing the full anatomy of a creature, it is difficult to determine conclusively how one could be related to the other. For me, circumstantial evidence is not sufficient, as I do not wish to make any assumptions, even if the evidence appears to be convincing.

Nearly all of science is "circumstantial evidence". It is a common error that circumstantial evidence is somehow less valid than direct evidence. In fact, direct evidence (eye-witness) is often less valid because of the nature of people and their memories. Circumstantial evidence is not biased by these things.

Although plants and animals do have the same types of cells, I was hoping you could have provided some information about the results of animals having been exposed to radiation rather than plants, as plants do not possess as many organs as animals have. What would the same amount of radiation that was used to produce ruby-red grapefruit do to the offspring of an animal, perhaps a fruit fly or a larger animal such as a rabbit?

Hey now, you cant selectively decide which evidence you will accept and which you will not. The excuse of "organs"? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This is about how radiation can cause changes in organisms. The plants were exposed to much higher than normal amounts of radiation. So if an organism can survive and produce traits under extreme conditions, then what about at ambient levels. THAT is the argument at hand here.

We are all exposed to radiation all the time and it consistently is damaging our DNA. This is a basic fact. We know that this doesnt always get repaired. Sometimes this can lead to cancer, sometimes it is harmless and sometimes it can be beneficial.

---

When I wrote on 1/2/2012: “I am asking if you know of any observed experiments or observed natural occurrences where a species changed to obtain different traits, other than a fly with additional useless wings or legs or a different color or when two different dogs interbreed the offspring does not look like either parent. I am referring to a creature having one type of body plan (appearance) that changed to a different body plan, such as a fly’s offspring (over many generations) looking something like a mosquito or a spider (they are all arthropods), or perhaps a rabbit, over many generations, changing to appear to look something like a raccoon (both mammals).� You responded on 1/6/2012 by stating: “Yes, fossils. Fossils are observations.� I was referring to animals that are living and still have flesh and can be observed in action. After all, if evolution still continues today (why would we think otherwise?), we should be observing multiples of animals in the process of forming new traits, such as a reptile in the process of developing wings from forelimbs, reptiles in the process of changing from scales to hair, land animals in the process of developing webbed feet, etc.

This isnt how evolution works. This is like asking someone to prove plate tectonics by showing a mountain range forming.

When I asked on 1/2/2012: “Do you know of any examples of creatures that appear to be in the process of forming new features or traits? If so, would you direct to the literature? I would prefer something other than fruit fly experiments that produced other types of flies. I believe Goat (12-14-2011) already provided information on fruit flies.� You responded on 1/6/2012 by stating: “Everything is. A good example are ring species.� I checked out the ring species that you suggested. The definition of a ring species I found is: “In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two ‘end’ populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each ‘linked’ species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, ‘end’ populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a ‘ring’.� (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)

Multiple forms of salamanders and sea gulls are known to illustrate the concept of ring species. Since these sea gulls are able to interbreed, in addition to nature changes of offspring, their offspring could result in different types of sea gulls. Could the changes in these creatures be the result of genes being switched on or off rather than by mutations?

If genes were just switched off, we wouldnt get the reproductive isolation.

Just as the illustration of fruit flies, the discussion of ring species salamanders, although different species of salamanders, are still salamanders. The examples of ring species, such as salamanders and sea gulls, appears to illustrate a very natural process that occurs in nature through breeding rather than through mutations. Creatures tend to develop new traits and appearances (micro evolution), however, the changes do not appear to result in a major change (macro evolution). In the case of the ring species salamanders, generally speaking, the salamanders are still salamanders, they never became anything but a salamander. In the case of the ring species sea gulls, generally speaking, the sea gulls are still sea gulls, they never became anything but a sea gulls.

This goes back to the plate tectonic analogy. We do not live long enough to observe such changes directly. The kicker is, however, we do not need to. While the salamanders are still salamanders, what was once one species, is not several. Soon, those species will not be able to breed with each other making them more and more distant. So if you can accept there being enough genetic change to allow speciation, what logically or practically stops you from accepting further changed beyond the species level?

What I was referring to was that not every aspect of evolution has been explained. If there is no explanation as to how an amphibian reproductive system could have changed to a reptilian reproductive system, how a reptilian reproductive system could have changed to a mammalian reproductive system, how a reptilian 3-chambered heart could have changed to a 4-chambered mammalian heart, how a reptilian respiratory system could have changed to an avian respiratory system, then I would suppose that there is currently no explanation as to how the differences may have developed and certain assumptions would therefore have been made for one to believe that one evolved from the other. Do you know how these changes could have occurred? I asked this before but have not yet received a response on this. Also, science seems to assume that life began from chemicals that were present during an early Earth. This is further discussed in the next section, “Origin of Life on Earth.�

A few things, first evolution has been shown to be a fact. We know dogs came from non-dogs, humans came from non-humans, etc...

Secondly, if we dont know the full details, it doesnt mean it didnt happen. Most of us do not understand fully how a car works, yet we still not surprised every time we get in that it works. We are still working on the details of how gravity works, but no one doubts its existence.

Thirdly, because you cant find the evidence, doesnt mean it isnt out there. Im not sure exactly HOW you search for these things, but I can manage to find the answers in usually a matter of minutes. so instead of saying "I cant find it, therefore it must not exist", try being more thorough or scholarly in your research.

[Critical_Thinker]

the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials…

vvvv ---------- Critical_Thinker 1/13/2012 post -------------------- vvvvv
Hi Jackelantern. Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate your providing a great deal of detail rather than giving quick, vague responses, although I could have done without your sarcasm. It is distracting and not necessary, and for me, it weakens your arguments to resort to such tone. If you want to be viewed upon as being credible, then you need to tone down you false accusations.

Just because we disagree on some issues does not necessarily indicate that I am ignorant, it might indicate that you and I view the same evidence from different perspectives. If some things cannot be explained from natural occurrences, then the subject is open to interpretation. If one believes there is no God, then one will need to assume that whatever occurred had to have developed by natural causes, for there is no other explanation for them. This would be an assumption, just as one claiming that anything that is unexplainable is explained by a Creator.
I am only looking for facts so that I may form my own opinions. It is true that those who believe in a Deity are not able to prove there is a God or that God created everything. We humans are left with only the available evidence which includes our ability to conduct relative experiments and our ability to reason. This is why I am asking questions to determine whether a Creator did it or if everything developed as a result of natural causes. If there is substantial evidence that indicates that everything occurred naturally, then one most likely will conclude that no Creator was involved. However, if science has not yet been (or appears to never will be able) able to explain some development, then one may be inclined to believe that something or Someone beyond our comprehension did it. This may be what you call “God of the Gaps.�

If you have read my other posts you will discover that I do not believe that God created every single species of plants and animals that exist or ever have existed. Currently, through my research, it appears that organisms are only able to change to a certain degree and then are no longer able to change any further. For example, flies have the ability to change to different types of flies. Horses are able to change both in appearance and size, however, they still maintain the same general body type. The bottom line, however, is that the horse and their ancestors still have the same basic body plan, although their body may have somewhat changed over the years.

At this point I am trying to determine whether science is able to explain life or whether some aspects of life are so far unexplainable. When I make comments or ask questions, I am not defending any position. I am seeking answers to my questions. I read material from many sources regarding evolution, some from evolutionists, some from creationists, and some from evolutionists who disagree with Darwin’s theory. If some of the material I present is inaccurate or totally false, I am expecting you to explain why you believe it is false. Don’t attack me. Just explain why you disagree with what was stated. If you ignore a scientific comment or question I ask or are unable to refute conclusively what is being claimed, as long as the comment is scientific, I would therefore conclude that the argument is true and accurate. If all you do is criticize me and my comments, what else am I to think?

On 1/11/2012 Jackelantern stated: “As far as not believing evolution.. It seems you did a good job of ignoring genetics and focused purely on fossil data. Fossil data will never be complete for obvious reasons. Creationists love this because they can play the "GOD of the GAPS" game. But they get pretty upset when we can play that same game in relation to creationism to which they have literally zero evidence for.�

You, Jackelantern, claim that I am only utilizing fossil evidence rather than genetic evidence, which is not true. I suppose you would rather discuss genetics than fossils. Is genetics your area of expertise? Fossils, however, still remain valuable in studying evolution, for how else is one to determine what creatures evolved from which creatures?

Are you accusing me of playing the “GOD of the GAPS� game? Where did you get this idea? Where have you read that I ever mentioned God? I thought this is supposed to be a scientific discussion, not a theological one. Let’s keep God out of it for the time being. Do you have me mixed up with someone else, or are you making assumptions?

I would suggest that before you make any accusations about someone, you should ask them first what they believe. That way, any misunderstanding will hopefully be cleared up. How else can there be an intelligent dialog? For me, I am only sharing what I have read and hope you and your team would provide some information that would either verify or refute what was claimed. No wonder evolutionists and creationists are not able to communicate, they make claims and accusations against each other that are sometimes simply not true.

If you, Jackelantern, read my previous posts, you will see that I also discuss some genetics and that I do not only discuss fossils. Did you read my 1/2/2012 response to Autodidact? I believe there is some genetics discussed there. Do you have a specific genetics topic that you would like to discuss, such as comparing chimpanzee chromosomes with human chromosomes? If you would like to provide genetic evidence that demonstrates that one creature is related to another, I would welcome the material.

Contrary to what you might believe, it cannot adequately be determined what occurred in the past by only examining organisms that are in existence today. Every type of evidence needs to be considered. Some discussions naturally lead to certain types of evidence. In the case of bird evolution, how can it be determined how feathers and wings developed by only studying genetics? Just because feathers may be made of some type of keratin as other reptile scales or mammal hair, this does not automatically indicate that feathers evolved from scales or mammal hair. In addition to feathers consisting of keratin, hair, hooves, nails, claws, bills, are also make of some form of keratin.

In my opinion, just because two creatures that are still in existence that have some genetic trait that is similar, does not necessarily indicate that the two creatures are related. It only indicates that they share some common traits. What is needed to prove evolution, is a sequence of fossils that conclusively demonstrates a progression. If evolution were true, there should at least be some fossils that would substantiate these claims. I realize that not all creatures fossilize, however, if evolution were true, there should be some that can demonstrate this. I read about reptile and mammal-like reptile fossils, however, I do not believe there is adequate jaw/ear fossils to demonstrate conclusively how a reptilian ear-jaw joint could gradually change to become a mammalian ear/jaw joint. We can discuss this in more detail if you like. I have provided one comment below that is related to this discussion.

“There is little evidence to support the view that mammals evolved from reptiles. Not only is there a lack of intermediate fossils, but it is hard to see how it could possibly have happened. The main question is, how could mammals evolve their jaw and ear from a reptile jaw? All reptiles have a lower jaw made up of at least four separate bones on each side, and a single bone in each ear. In every known mammal, either alive or extinct, the opposite is true. Mammals have a one-piece jawbone and three bones in the ear. All these bones fossilize readily, yet there is not a single fossil species with two bones in the ear or with two or three bones in the jaw.� (Francis Hitching. 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe. Pan, London & Sydney. In: Dr. Alan Hayward, Physicist. Copyright 1985. Publication Date 2005. Creation and Evolution—Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible. WIPF & Stock Publishers. Eugene, Oregon. Pp. 43)

Ignoring the source, do you, Jackelantern, agree or disagree with the above comments? If you disagree with the content, would you explain why you disagree?
---
Some claim that the similarities among animals and humans, such as having similar forelimbs, are due to a common ancestor rather than having a common function. Homologies exist among animal structures because of the necessity of using similar structures to solve similar functional problems. The pattern seen in the vertebrate forelimb, for example, has a single bone closest to the trunk, two bones in the next section, and a variety of bones in the farthest section out, due to common function. It is not true that similar body structures (homologies) are due to similar genetic information being passed off their offspring, and hence, to a common ancestor. Rather, the homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways (the process by which the embryo physically becomes an adult). For example, flies and wasps share similar body structures, and therefore derive, from homologous genes and homologous pathways, therefore evolutionists believe they share a common ancestor. Some believe that the genes and pathways that produce homologous structures should have been inherited from a common ancestor. However, the similar body structures of some wasps from developmental pathways are entirely different from those of fruit flies, and are also different from other wasps. Another example of organisms having similar body structures but are not genetically related is the vertebrate gut. In sharks, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from the cells on the floor of the cavity. In frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This is a clear indication that similar structures in vertebrates can be produced by different developmental pathways. This seems to contradict what one would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. (Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. 2007. Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. P. 43-45)

Ignoring the source, do you, Jackelantern, agree or disagree with the above assessment? If you disagree, would you explain why it is false?
---
My, Critical_Thinker, quote posted on 1/10/2012 regarding Dr. Craig Venter’s experiment: “Synthetic, involves designed from scratch, not copied from a natural genome… the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials… What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on a PC — and then saying you have created a computer. It’s not trivial, but it is utterly absurd the claims that are being made about it.�http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress ... life-form/

To which you, Jackelantern, responded on 1/11/2012: “Right here is your problem... They are all still just atoms.. Please read my post above and understand that raw materials can involve using what we have available. What is relevant is that the synthetic life is actually not naturally occurring life. If you want a good example of evolution, you can look at nylon eating bacteria.

You, Jackelantern, are correct in stating that organisms consist of atoms, however, what you fail to explain is how DNA with information could have developed from non-intelligence. As far as I know, no one has yet been able to explain this, not even Dr. Craig Venter, who, although is very knowledgeable about biology, has not yet been able to create life directly from only raw chemicals in the laboratory and therefore is not yet able to demonstrate how life could have developed directly from chemicals alone.

How is nylon-eating bacteria proof of evolution? I agree that organisms
sometimes change to adapt to their environment, but a bacteria that eats nylon does not prove that life evolved from inorganic matter. Dogs eat shoes. Does this mean that dogs came from an animal’s leather or some human made material?

I read the information you, Jackelantern, suggested. Of all the information I read, I was not able to find any information that remotely discusses how life could have originated on this planet. Neither the prion discussions nor the co-evolutions document even hinted about origins. The articles about prion discuss how prion causes diseases in animals and humans. I discussed co-evolution in a previous post. (See my 12-31-2011 post.)

The article, “Green Sea Slug Is Part Animal, Part� from Wired Science, you, Jackelantern, suggested does not discuss origins at all. It is a discussion of how the slug Elysia chlorotica survives on photosynthesizing organelles and some genes from algae.

I will discuss the Springerlink article later below that you, Jackelantern, suggested: “Self-Organizing mechanism of biosystems: asymmetric dentisy radio of purine and pyrimidine in RNA� – Ken Naitoh.

To illustrate that life can form by natural processes, one must demonstrate how various chemicals could come together naturally, and form life. So far, none of the web links you suggested discusses how life could have originated from non-living matter. How do you propose how life could have originated?

We need to first agree on what constitutes life and what the smallest organism could be that would be considered a living thing. I believe that a cell is the smallest organism that is considered life. Amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA are not considered living organisms. I would state that for something to be considered a living organism, it must be able to reproduce itself, eat and eventually die. Do you agree?

I am not sure what your definition of life is, so I will provide my own definition to perhaps clear up some confusion. If we believe that the cell is the simplest life form, then we should concentrate on how the first cell could have originated by natural means. First, I do not believe amino acids are living organisms, but are building blocks of proteins, which in turn are needed to build a cell. In most proteins the amino acid chain is between one hundred and five hundred amino acids long. Of all the various types of amino acids, living organisms use only twenty types of amino acids. In order for the correct amino acids to form, the correct chemical bases must be present. The correct arrangement of chemicals (A, G, C, U) must be in place to create the correct RNA, which is utilized to create an amino acid. Not only must the correct letters (chemicals, bases) be present to create the correct amino acid, the correct syntax rules must be followed or no protein will be developed from the amino acids. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations are needed.

Some believe that viruses are considered the simplest life forms, although viruses
need a host in order to reproduce. “Viruses are the smallest, simplest form of life on earth. They cannot reproduce without a host. No virus can duplicate itself outside another cell. It needs to hijack a host to survive--a true parasite in the wild. They are the smallest of all candidates that might define the universe of Earth's living things--if indeed they are alive at all, and if they assume the defining characteristics of all metabolizing organisms: to be self-replicating, feed, then die.� http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/416/e ... -sneeze-at

Protozoan are also considered the simplest life forms. Protozoan is defined as: “Any of a group of single-celled, usually microscopic, eukaryotic organisms, such as amoebas, ciliates, flagellates, and sporozoans.�

Some claim that bacteria are the simplest life form. Bacteria are examples of the prokaryotic cell type. “… most scientists hold that the first organisms on Earth were much like bacteria of today.� http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfron ... poole.html

Bacteria have been defined as: “a very large group of microorganisms comprising one of the three domains of living organisms. They are prokaryotic [a cell not having a membrane-bound nucleus], unicellular [having or consisting of a single cell], and either free-living in soil or water or parasites of plants or animals.� (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bacteria)

Some believe that the first complex molecules were proteins or DNA or possibly something else such as RNA. The problem is that proteins are needed to replicate DNA, but DNA is necessary to instruct the building of proteins.

“The first support for this idea of life arising out of the primordial soup came from the famous 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, in which they made amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—by applying sparks to a test tube of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water. If amino acids could come together out of raw ingredients, then bigger, more complex molecules could presumably form given enough time. Biologists have devised various scenarios in which this assemblage takes place in tidal pools, near underwater volcanic vents, on the surface of clay sediments, or even in outer space. But were the first complex molecules proteins or DNA or something else? Biologists face a chicken-and-egg problem in that proteins are needed to replicate DNA, but DNA is necessary to instruct the building of proteins. Many biologists believe that RNA (ribonucleic acid), similar to DNA, may have been the first complex molecule from which life is based upon. RNA carries genetic information like DNA, however, it can also direct chemical reactions as proteins do… [it is thought that] this so-called ‘RNA world’ is still too complex to be the origin of life. Information-carrying molecules like RNA are sequences of molecular ‘bits.’ The primordial soup would be full of things that would terminate these sequences before they grew long enough to be useful… In the very beginning, you couldn't have genetic material that could copy itself unless you had chemists back then doing it for you…" (How Life Began - By Michael Schirber posted: 09 June 2006 09:09 am ET (http://www.livescience.com/animals/0606 ... rigin.html)

The above web site discusses the possibilities of how life could have originated on the Earth, but offers nothing conclusive (feel free to read the entire article). As mentioned above, it is believed that RNA could have been a forerunner to the cell because it is capable of catalyzing some chemical reactions in the manner of proteins. The problem is that it has not yet been demonstrated how RNA could have evolved into a cell.

Some believe that it is possible that DNA can replicate in a simple way and then later natural selection took over. For example, some small viruses use RNA as their genetic material. RNA molecules are simpler than DNA, and they can also store information and even replicate. Just to cite a couple of problems with replication having begun by RNA, the RNA molecule would need information to function, just as DNA would, which goes right back to the same problem of where the information came from. Also, for a single strand of RNA to replicate, there must be an identical RNA molecule close by. To have a reasonable chance of having two identical RNA molecules of the right length would require a library of ten billion billion billion billion billion billion RNA molecules. In my opinion, this effectively rules out any chance origin of a primitive replicating system. (Strobel, L. 2004. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids (MI): Zondervan. Pp. 285-292)
Ignoring the source, if the above is false, would you please explain why it is not true or direct me to literature that refutes these claims?

Scientists theorized that chemical attractions may have caused DNA’s four-letter alphabet [A, C, G, T] to self-assemble or that the natural attractions between amino acids prompted them to link together by themselves to create a protein. Proteins are composed of a long line of amino acids. DNA in life organisms is not merely a repetitive sequence. To convey information, irregularity in sequencing is needed. This irregular sequencing is what is used to convey information and what needs to be explained in DNA. The four letters of its alphabet [A, C, G, T] are highly irregular while at the same time conforming to a functional requirement, that is, the correct arrangement of amino acids to create a working protein. If there were only repeating characters in DNA, the assembly instructions would merely tell amino acids to assemble in the same way over and over again. The DNA wouldn’t be able to build all the many different protein molecules that are needed for a living cell to function. The structure of DNA depends on certain bonds that are caused by chemical attractions. For instance, there are hydrogen bonds and bonds between the sugar and phosphate molecules that form the two twisting backbones of the DNA molecule. However, there is one place where there are no chemical bonds, and that’s between the nucleotide bases, which are the chemical letters in the DNA’s assembly instructions. In other words, the letters that spell out the text in the DNA message do not interact chemically with each other in any significant way. Also, the bases (letters) are interchangeable. Each base can attach with equal facility at any site along the DNA backbone in DNA, each individual base, or letter, is chemically bonded to the sugar-phosphate backbone of the molecule. This is how bases (letters) are attached to the DNA’s structure. But there is no attraction or bonding between the individual letters themselves. So, there’s nothing chemically that forces the letters of DNA into any particular sequence. The sequencing has to come from somewhere else. (Strobel, L. 2004. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids (MI): Zondervan. Pp. 285-292)
Jackelanern, do you know where this sequencing came from?

Again, ignoring the source, if the above information is not true, would you explain why it is false or direct me to literature that refutes these claims?

In most proteins the amino acid chain is between one hundred and five hundred amino acids long. Of all the various types of amino acids, living organisms use only twenty types of amino acids. In order for the correct amino acids to form, the correct chemical bases must be present. The correct arrangement of chemicals (A, G, C, U) must be in place to create the correct RNA, which is utilized to create an amino acid. Not only must the correct letters (chemicals, bases) be present to create the correct amino acid, the correct syntax rules must be followed or no protein will be developed from the amino acids. The linear sequence of amino acids in a protein can be thought of as a sentence made up of long combinations of the twenty amino acid letters. Then, the correct amino acid sequences must be present to create a protein. Not only must the sentence structure be correct, the sentence must also make sense. (Michael Denton. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler. 4550 Montgomery Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Pp. 308-323)
---
In response to my comment: “science seems to assume that life began from chemicals that were present during an early Earth� You, Jackelantern, wrote: “Face palm! Apposed to being dirt people your claims? Oh that wasn't a fail!.. Do you even know what the human body is made of? Well, we aren't dirt people!: most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon, the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Oxygen (65%), Carbon (18%), Hydrogen (10%), Nitrogen (3%), Calcium (1.5%), Phosphorus (1.0%), Potassium (0.35%), Sulfur (0.25%), Sodium (0.15%), Magnesium (0.05%), Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%) Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

Thanks for the information Jackelantern, although the sarcasm continues with your
comment: “The human body by mass is mostly oxygen.. Water for example is oxygen and hydrogen to which are the most common gasses in the universe. We are far from "Dirt people" you creationists think we are. Oh wait, that part of the bible is correct now is it? Dammit!, so much for the creationist theory on our creation.�

Why do you, Jackelantern, assume that I am a creationist because I have questions? Because I am not a firm evolutionist you categorize me as a creationist? What is your problem?

There is no dispute that life is composed of naturally occurring chemicals. Since
you seem to refer to the Bible so much, I thought I would note that the Bible also agrees that humans consist of chemicals from the Earth: “… the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.�(Genesis 2:7 NIV)

The article from http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/ (“Self-Organizing mechanism of biosystems: asymmetric dentisy radio of purine and pyrimidine in RNA,� – Ken Naitoh) verifies what the Bible states: “… for dust you are and to dust you will return.� (Genesis 3:19 NIV)

I only mentioned these verses because you, Jackelantern, are so inclined to mention God and the Bible (of course in a derogatory manner) whenever you get the chance. The Bible does not contradict factual science. The theory of Evolution is not so factual.

The reason why the Bible mentions that the first human was made from “the dust of the ground� was because when the book of Genesis was written, no one knew anything about DNA, RNA, chromosomes, ribosomes, amino acids, proteins, or polymers. Even during Charles Darwin’s time in the 1800s, no one knew what a cell actually consisted of or what it did. I believe a cell was previously called protoplasm. Do you not believe humans consist of chemicals derived from the Earth?

Because humans are similar biologically to other living things, it is possible for humans to eat plants, fruits, vegetables, and animals. If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on Earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food.
---
I am not sure what specific reference you were referring to when you, Jackelantern, stated: “Please read my post above and understand that raw materials can involve using what we have available.� I took a guess that you were referring to the web links that I listed below.

The article from http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/ (“Self-Organizing mechanism of biosystems: asymmetric dentisy radio of purine and pyrimidine in RNA,� – Ken Naitoh) that you, Jackelantern, suggested compares purines and pyrimidine with tRNA and DNA. The article states that tRNA and DNA self-formed from these substances (purine and pyrimidine). Although the article discusses purine and pyrimidine in tRNA, codons, ribosome RNA (rRNA) and DNA, the article does not discuss how any of these could have become incorporated in a cell, nor does the article discuss how the information contained in DNA could have been obtained. Information requires knowledge. The question remains: “How did the first cell develop?�

The problem with any scenario regarding how life may have originated from chemicals by natural means, the problem of how cells could have formed on their own must be overcome.

As I will mention later in my response to your, Jackelantern’s, response to my quoting Charles Darwin discussing “some warm little pond� I wrote:
“We would most likely agree that the building blocks to produce a protein are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy the protein is said to hydrolyze. The same is true of DNA and RNA.�

For any discussion about the origins of life on Earth, what would be needed to be convincing is a step by step process of how life could have originated from raw materials, along with how the information in DNA, RNA, tRNA developed. If this cannot be done, then the concept that life developed on its own by natural means will remain an unproved theory. So far, I have read nothing to substantiate such claims.

As long as science is not able to conclusively illustrate how life originated from non-living chemicals I would appreciate it if you stop criticizing those who believe there is a God. For evolutionists, have their confidence in science and for creationists, have their confidence in their Creator.

In response to my “warm little pond� quotation from a letter that Charles Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker in 1871, you, Jackelantern, responded by stating: “Try an ocean, or deep sea vents.. Do [sic you] do realize that some living organisms feed off of radiation right? In fact, where there is uranium, volcanic activity, and water there is a good chance of life.�

Besides the “Warm little pond� theory, there are currently other theories circulating among evolutionists regarding how life could have originated. I am not criticizing any of them, not even Charles Darwin’s “warm little pond.� People are trying to figure out how life could have originated. There is nothing wrong with developing hypotheses. After all, aren’t theories developed from them?

“Two competing theories have… developed. (1)The discovery of microbes and other small organisms living in and around hydro-thermal vents (underwater hot springs boiling from the ocean floor) has led to the idea that life may have started at the bottom of the sea. Sharp differences in temperature and oxygen concentration at the boundaries around these vents make good catalysts for chemical reactions. The problem with this theory, however, is that the complex organic compounds likely to form life cannot remain stable for long at such high temperatures. Amino acids, instead of joining up, would tend to break down. (2) The other scenario states life first combined in the cold climates of outer space, specifically, within the cold dark hearts of interstellar dust clouds. It has been theorized that long, complex organic molecules can be made when ionizing radiation leads to ion-molecule reactions. The intense cold prevents them from breaking down. These complex molecules are brought to Earth by incoming meteorites and comets. The problem is that most of a meteor is vaporized on impact with our atmosphere and therefore the survival potential for organisms would be very low. They would be burned to a crisp on the journey to Earth.� (http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/5/ref ... ittle-pond)

“The warm pond and hot vent theories also have been seriously disputed by experimental research that has found the half-lives of many critically important compounds needed for life to be far “too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds� (Levy and Miller, 1998, p. 7933). Furthermore, research has documented that “unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine� because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933). As Levy and Miller explain, “the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleotide bases A,U,G and T at temperatures much above 0° Celsius would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential components on the early earth� (p. 7933). For this reason, Levy and Miller postulated that either a two-letter code or an alternative base pair was used instead. This requires the development of an entirely different kind of life, a conclusion that is not only highly speculative, but likely impossible because no other known compounds have the required properties for life that adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine possess. Furthermore, this would require life to evolve based on a hypothetical two-letter code or alternative base pair system. Then life would have to re-evolve into a radically new form based on the present code, a change that appears to be impossible according to our current understanding of molecular biology. Furthermore, the authors found that, given the minimal time perceived to be necessary for evolution to occur, cytosine is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C. Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist. One of the main problems with Miller’s theory is that his experimental methodology has not been able to produce much more than a few amino acids which actually lend little or no insight into possible mechanisms of abiogenesis.� (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)

Many evolutionists believe that as rain fell on the Earth, chemicals in a hypothetical pool, warmed by the volcanic activity and energized by lightning, organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. These molecules then organized into cellular structures like proteins, DNA, and cell membranes. The problem with this scenario is that in reality, it would not be possible. Proteins do not form from piles of amino acids, and DNA contains a specific code that must be copied from another strand of DNA. Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together—a process called hydrolysis. (Evolution Exposed Chapter 5: The Origin of Life, R. Patterson, March 22, 2007, Answers in Genesis. www.answersingenesis.org/go/origin, www.answersingenesis.org/go/alien, https://www.answersingenesis.org/articl ... in-of-life)

We would most likely agree that the building blocks to produce a protein are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy the protein is said to hydrolyze. The same is true of DNA and RNA.

Regardless of which scenario is used, warm small pond, deep sea vents, etc., they all use water in one form or another. Water is one of the agents that damages DNA. If DNA somehow evolved on the Earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced. If it were not for DNA repair genes, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell. How then could DNA survive when subjected to attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth? Starting in water is also a problem since water tends to break the bonds of some amino acids and prevents them from forming chains.

I am sure you are aware that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids (called handedness or chirality) in nature, however, only left-handed amino acids are used in living things. When amino acids are left to form on their own, both left-handed as well as right-handed amino acids form. When both left-handed and right-handed amino acids are together, no chain of amino acids would form. How do you suppose organisms could have originated with only left-handed amino acids? How could the left-handed amino acids have been separated from right-handed amino acids in nature while the cell was developing?

The problem of chirality is that in our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. It is a well accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal chance to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer.

When amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, there is always a 50% mixture of the two forms. Just one long or right-handed amino acid inserted into a chain of short, left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function.

It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. There is also chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are compounds of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the “L� or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the “R� or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the “R� or right-handed optical isomer. The “L� isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what is seen in natural proteins or in natural DNA.

A random chance natural process cannot create proteins with thousands of “L� molecules and DNA with billions of “R� molecules. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality (handedness). It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be destroyed. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the “R� configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, it is much less likely for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, with all of them being formed with the same chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job and DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this Earth. (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html)

Can you explain how the problem with handedness could have been overcome by nature alone?
---
To my comment: “wikipedia’s assessment is that Anchiornis has a “less flight-adapted profile.� I suppose if this is true, then most likely Anchiornis could not fly.� To which Jackelantern responded: “Wrong.. A clumsy flier doesn't mean something can't fly. And creation.com is a terrible source of information. Creation.com = pseudoscience. Hence, is a jumbo jet as agile as a fighter jet? Surely one is more adapted profile right? So it doesn't surprise me that you leave this out, this to which is just a comparison to a more adapted cousin:�

I have no problem with one claiming that Anchiornis may have been a “clumsy flier,� as you state. Your analogy of a jumbo jet not being as agile as a fighter jet is not a good one, for jets were designed and developed by intelligent engineers who designed each craft to perform specific duties. In the case of the jumbo jet, it was designed to hold multiple human beings and luggage. In the case of fighter jets, they were designed for limited capacity but quick speeds and having the ability for quick maneuverability. Even if you had used the analogy of a primitive airplane developed by the Wright brothers, it still would not have been acceptable. The Wright brothers were intelligent enough to determine how a craft could be designed for flight. As our knowledge increased, bigger and faster airplanes were designed and developed. But one did not evolve by itself from a more primitive one. My purpose in studying bird evolution is to determine if and when a reptile developed (perhaps, gradually over many generations and time) an avian respiratory lung system. Is it possible? If so, how do you suppose it could have occurred?

Based on the current fossil evidence, I studied the descriptions of various reptile and/or bird-like creatures to determine when reptiles may have begun to develop avian respiratory systems. I must admit, however, if a creature did not actually fly, they would most likely not need an avian type lung.

Creationists who believe that everything that ever existed would most likely believe that the fossil record is complete and that there are no missing fossils. It may be very possible, and probable, that not all creatures that ever existed became fossilized or that they were all discovered. We only have the evidence that is available.

From my research, it appears that Ichthyornis was the first creature that was able to fly. This would imply that this creature was equipped with lungs that would enable it to fly. I would therefore assume (I hate to assume) that this creature had an avian type respiratory system. My question is: When did creatures begin to develop avian type respiratory systems? How could this have been accomplished?

As I mentioned in my last post, I recently read an article from an atheist and evolutionist who believes the fossil evidence does not support a gradual development in bird evolution. That was why this atheist (Darren Wong) stated that the “Pouncing Proavis Model� was developed, that is, because the fossil evidence does not support or reflect a steady progression of bird evolution. (http://warforscience.blogspot.com/2009/ ... art-1.html)

This, perhaps, may be similar to the reason why the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium was developed, as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed in 1972, was due to the lack of fossil evidence. I do not believe that either of these concepts proves that evolution did not happen. It is only an admission that the fossil record does not include all the intermediate fossils that one would hope for to verify that evolution happened. I believe that evolution happens. Although I am convinced that a creature could experience small changes (micro evolution), I have doubts that multiple changes within a type of animal or plant would gradually lead to large changes (macro evolution). Please do not accuse me of not believing in any form of evolution because it is not true. Just because I have questions and raise some points that go against evolution, does not mean that I do not believe in some type of evolution. I am searching for the truth. Please do not confuse me with some creationists who believe that every thing that has ever existed was separately created.

In my comment about reptiles developing avian lungs, I am trying to determine around which time period it may have occurred, although I am not sure what benefit avian lungs would have had for a creature that did not fly. In response to this, you, Jackelantern, stated: “we can learn a lot about an animal by what it's life was like just by understanding things like blood vessels in bones. What we find are exactly what we find in modern birds and animals.. Their exact anatomy in terms of lungs ect will require certain assumptions, but we follow the evidence vs stopping and saying "GOD DONE IT"... :/�

I Checked out the video you suggested ( about the possibility that dinosaurs could have been warm-blooded and may have been more mammal-like than was previously supposed, however, the video did not discuss anything about how a dinosaur could have evolved into a modern mammal. As far as I know, there are no fossils that could demonstrate conclusively that a dinosaur evolved into a modern mammal.
I would agree that the birds that are believed to have had the ability to fly most likely had avian lungs to enable them to remain airborne, even if this is an assumption on my part, but I believe that it is a good one. I am trying to determine when a reptile developed the avian lung system.

You, Jackelantern, stated that if one understood how bones are studied then I would understand how it could be determined which type of respiratory system a creature had. If it is known which type of respiratory a creature had, which had reptilian lungs and which had avian lungs? When was the transition? Was there a reptile that had a combination of a reptile type lung and an avian lung that was in the process of developing into an avian lung?

You, Jackelantern, stated: “And I do believe that it's obvious that evolution had to have taken. You're stating a obvious. So what is your evidence to prove it was created out of thin air via magic wand? Remember, this is the same bible that tells us we are all dirt men made of dirt when we are actually 75% water molecules and mostly oxygen by mass. So perhaps you can clarify for us, because evolution DONE IT giving the evidence we have.�

By claiming that something is obvious is making an assumption, in this case, that
evolution has occurred. I make no such assumptions, for assumptions may or may not be true. This is what also happens to Christians. Some assumptions need to be made by them, specifically, that the universe did not create itself and that life did not develop on its own. Therefore the conclusion is that there must be a Creator. I personally would like to stick with the facts.

Yes, I am demanding that evolutionists provide facts to back up their claims, just as I would expect anyone else to be able to back up any belief. After all, evolutionists are the ones who make the claim that all matter and life developed by natural processes. If one believes this, one should be prepared to provide the evidence that supports their view.
----
In regard to my comment about animals being exposed to radiation to determine whether radiation would produce the mutations necessary for an animal to evolve new traits, you provided the following response: “How about you experiment and find out? Oh, Creationists don't do that!.. Making up an experiment off the top of your head and assuming someone is going to plop down the results in front of you is a bit silly.�

All I was asking is whether experiments have been performed on animals to determine if radiation could alter genes sufficiently that would produce different traits in their offspring or not. From my study, mutations resulting from radiation tend to hinder the creature rather than cause an improved trait. From your response, since you did not provide any examples, it appears that no improved traits have ever appeared in a creature as a result of radiation affecting its genes or scientists have never experimented on animals. I find it difficult to believe that no experiments have ever been performed on animals using radiation to determine how their genes could have been altered. I do believe that experiments have been performed but none have resulted in an offspring possessing improved traits or even just different traits. The offspring of a mutated creature might have been born with defective traits, however.
---
In response to my comment about fruit flies being flies and salamanders only being salamanders, you, Jackelantern, made this comment: “And, you need to look up speciation and genetic differences to where a species splits and can no longer interbreed. Then fast forward the clock a million years and see what happens.. Types of birds would range greatly.. Though I see you going down the fallacious Kinds Argument to which entirely ignores genetics. And yep, you display your ignorance of what evolution is below:� “News flash... Evolution doesn't state that salamanders will turn into fruit flies or birds. If you don't understand evolution, please see my post above. And your argument is easily debunked btw.. Hence, under your logic, I can make the claim that all living things are of one kind. Carbon based life forms...� “This is like saying nothing changed in the genetics, or lungless salamanders are lies.. It's like you don't even comprehend the fail of your argument here. Yeah, the act of sex alters species!???? Oh wait, what does sex involve?.. Possible genetic differentiation and drift..�

I do not dispute that there are some salamanders that do not have lungs. I read somewhere else that box jellyfish do not have a brain. How does this prove evolution? Are you suggesting that while a reptile was in the process of developing into a bird that it lost its lungs then, through generations later, developed avian lungs?

I am familiar with genetic drift. Genetic drift has nothing to do with mutations. I have no problems with the idea that birds change characteristics and traits. Did you ever read that I claimed that every bird that ever existed was created? If I am ignorant, please direct me to literature that would educate me. I also have no problem with the view that changes occur in an offspring of two parents that are of the same species. I believe this is natural and true. Children do not look identical to their parents. Dogs do not always look identical to their parents. This only illustrates changes within a species. We would both agree that an offspring would be a totally different looking creatures with completely different traits. We both agree that changes are minor that over time lead to more noticeable differences.
It was stated before from someone in your group that evolution does not state that salamanders will turn into fruit flies or birds. I never stated that this is what evolutionists believe. What I am claiming is that evolutionists claim that a fish became an amphibian, that an amphibian became a reptile, that a reptile became a mammal and that a reptile became a bird. Isn’t that what you believe? If this is what you believe, then surely there must be evolution going on now. Do you think evolution has stopped or that every living creature on the Earth is in a period of stasis? If evolution still goes on, and there is no reason why it should not, don’t you agree that there should be some examples of creatures that are in the process of evolving new traits?

I suppose you would agree that most changes in creatures are gradual, rather than occurring quickly. If changes are gradual, then at some point during the development, the creature should be displaying some intermediate trait. In the example of a reptile forelimb evolving into a bird wing, at some point some reptiles should display some trait that resembles the gradual development of a forelimb developing into a wing. I would also ask why wouldn’t reptiles today still be evolving into birds? Do you know of any reptile that is alive today that appears to be in the process of evolving into a bird?

Did you ever read where I have ever mentioned created kinds or are you
referring to my comments that I find it difficult for an amphibian to evolve into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a mammal or a bird? If so, then, yes, these are kinds. Just because creatures have similar traits and genetics, that does not necessarily indicate that one is related to one another. Some interpretations also need to be made. For example, just because frog species look similar, the molecules of the various frog species differ as much as those of mammals, a group that includes many diverse forms such as whales, bats, and kangaroos.
I read that flies and wasps share similar body structures, and therefore derive, from homologous genes and homologous pathways. Therefore evolutionists believe they share a common ancestor. The claim is that the genes and pathways that produce homologous structures should have been inherited from a common ancestor. However, the similar body structures of some wasps from developmental pathways are entirely different from those of fruit flies, and are also different from other wasps. Another example of organisms having similar body structures but are not genetically related is the vertebrate gut. In sharks, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from the cells on the floor of the cavity. In frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This is a clear indication that that similar structures in vertebrates can be produced by different developmental pathways. This appears to go against the idea that all vertebrates share a common ancestor.

I read that biologists have discovered that in many cases the same genes are used to produce different adult structures. The eyes of the squid, the fruit fly, and the mouse have different structured eyes. The squid and mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes.

I also read that evolutionists believe that the development of non-homologous structures should be regulated by non-homologous genes. They cannot explain that non-homologous eyes from an insect, a mollusk, and a vertebrate could be regulated during their development by homologous genes, such as the Pax-6 gene. The development of homologous structures can be governed by different genes and can follow different developmental pathways. Also, sometimes the same gene plays a role in producing different adult structures. This contradicts the theory of evolution being caused by mutations. Evolutionists claim that the reason why organisms have similar structures is because of common ancestry. They say that we should expect that similar structures would evolve from similar genes and developmental pathways. (Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, Ralph Seelke. 2007. Explore Evolution—The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. Hill House Publishers. Melbourne & London. P. 43-45)
Do you agree?
---
In response to my comment that creatures tend to develop new traits and appearance (micro evolution) but the changes most likely do not result in a major change (macro evolution), you, Jackelantern stated: “Your ignorance between the two is astounding. They are the same! Exactly the same mechanism and process! The only difference is time scale... Macro evolution being lots of micro evolutionary changes over time. Please see the nice little video I posted for you in my previous post. Macro evolution is where you can have speciation over time where genetic difference prevents interbreeding. Those split species go on and further evolve to which could lead to new species and eventually a species that doesn't look much like the species it derived from.�

I am sure you believe that small changes (micro evolution) eventually lead to major changes (macro evolution). If it were true, then, yes, they would be the same, as small changes gradually lead to a major change.

I am also familiar with the definition of speciation. This is the definition I have for speciation: “Speciation occurs as a breeding population splits into two, and they go their separately evolving ways. Among sexually reproducing species, speciation is said to have occurred when the two gene pools have separated so far that they can no longer interbreed. Speciation begins by accident. When separation has reached the stage where there is no interbreeding even within a geographical barrier, this causes the origin of a new species. Speciation is the evolution of different groups (species) that can’t interbreed, that is, groups that can’t exchange genes. Species is defined as a group of individuals that resemble one another more than they resemble members of other groups. Species is further defined as a group of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.�

Speciation is therefore not the result of mutations, but is a result of various gene pools of the same species being split up, thus reducing the available genes that an offspring could acquire.
---
I made the comment that I would like to have an example of a creature that currently exists that is in the process of becoming a creature with a different body type. You, Jackelantern, responded by stating: “It seems you think evolution takes 1 day or something. Though lungless salamanders ought to be a big clue.., have fun waiting.. Asking for something that won't happen in multi-cellular organisms within the time scale of your life is just playing game of intentional ignorance. Here is something... How about waiting for a new animal with a new body type to magically appear on your desk before your very eyes? That should happen instantly right? How about recording your GOD actually in the process of making a new species. Funny how that just happens in the bushes according creationists.

So I don't even need go further with your post, but I will for the hell of it. You have already shown me that you have no conceptual clue as to what evolution is, or how it works. But don't you worry, man is recoding how species are evolving in real time now... Why do you think there is such a great push to bring down science in America by Creationist nut cases?�

As stated above, I never claimed that evolutionists believe that changes occur rapidly or that “evolution takes 1 day.� When did you ever read that I made these claims? I do not believe evolution works that way. Neo-Darwinism’s version of the theory of evolution stipulates that changes occur from small changes and over vast periods of time, species change into different species. You must have me mixed up with someone else. I would appreciate it if you would not make accusations about me that are not true. Why are you bringing God into our discussion? I am trying to determine whether evolution is true or not and you keep talking about God. You are clouding the discussion. Get off your soap box and try to stay focused on what is being discussed. If you have valid answers to my comments and questions, you should not need to resort to sarcasm. If you are going to respond to my comments, I would appreciate your sticking to the topic being discussed. Creationism is a separate topic. I do not wish to have creation taught in schools. I would like, however, that if evolution is going to be taught, that it also include those areas where science does not have a verifiable, scientific answer. Whether you care to admit it or not, there are some areas that are not explainable by science. Allow the student to think for themselves, maybe some of the unsolved mysteries could be solved rather than ignored.

Is asking for an example of a creature that is in the process of evolving into another creature too much to ask? If evolution were true, there should be multiple cases of evolution going on. Again, I do not claim that evolutionists believe that evolution occurs instantly in the first offspring. I can do without your sarcasm. Let’s keep God out of this discussion. I thought this was a scientific discussion rather than a theological one. I may not have demonstrated that I have a firm grasp of what evolution is all about, but so far none of you evolutionists have been able to answer my questions satisfactorily. If you are so sure of evolution, I would suppose you would have all the answers, but you obviously do not.

I am not particularly fond of teaching creation in schools. What I am hoping for is when science is not able to explain something that it should be admitted that it is currently unknown. Science should not ignore an inability to describe how something occurred, such as how life began or where the first atom came from, but should simply state some theories as to how it could have occurred, but stating the actual explanation is currently unknown, and leave it at that. When something is unknown it drives someone to perform research to determine the solution or explanation.

Did you ever read anywhere of an explanation of some of the difficulties regarding evolution, except perhaps, from Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species?� It’s a shame that evolutionists today do not follow Charles Darwin’s style. I believe, in part, evolutionists ignore the difficulties because they are afraid that someone might fill gaps with the view that God did it. But this would be anathema to an atheistic evolutionist.
^^^^ Critical_Thinker 1-13-2012 post ^^^

[TheJackelantern]

Hi Jackelantern. Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate your providing a great deal of detail rather than giving quick, vague responses, although I could have done without your sarcasm. It is distracting and not necessary, and for me, it weakens your arguments to resort to such tone. If you want to be viewed upon as being credible, then you need to tone down you false accusations.

It's not sarcasm, it's calling you out on exactly what you were doing.

Just because we disagree on some issues does not necessarily indicate that I am ignorant

No, you are ignorant of the subject.. This doesn't make you a stupid person, it just shows that you do not know what you are talking about. And you post circular logic and god of the gaps arguments from entirely a position of ignorance. People don't have 10 years to waste here on these forums to teach you basic chemistry, or even biochemistry. Your ignorance of genetics was more than enough to dismiss your argument entirely.

If one believes there is no God, then one will need to assume that whatever occurred had to have developed by natural causes, for there is no other explanation for them. This would be an assumption, just as one claiming that anything that is unexplainable is explained by a Creator.

You can't create existence and it's rules. Nor can consciousness exist without causation. Hence, that ends the creationist argument right there. I don't actually need go any further than that.

I am only looking for facts so that I may form my own opinions.

Forming an opinion is the problem with your position. Science deals with what the facts tell us. The purpose of the scientific method is to remove opinion and put into context of what best explains things in relation to reality... Creationism is 100 percent pure assertion and opinion..

Currently, through my research, it appears that organisms are only able to change to a certain degree and then are no longer able to change any further.

This is false. And you mistakenly rest your entire concept of evolution on physical appearances.. I posted a video on macro and micro evolution. What's worse, you don't seem to realize that micro evolution often has a bigger impact on appearances than macro evolution. This was also discussed in the video. In fact, here are 3 examples of macro-evolution:

1: Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas."

2: . "Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926."

3: . "The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage."

And your argument that further changes would never occur takes some serious ignorance in assuming that biochemistry magically takes a permanent vacation.. This which would require total ignorance of even basic chemistry, electromagnetism is, or what all that has to do within a complex adaptive systems that have feedback. Your argument is equal to suggesting that a coast line will never change over time as waves smash into it. This is what systems with feedback entail.

science has not yet been (or appears to never will be able) able to explain some development, then one may be inclined to believe that something or Someone beyond our comprehension did it.

This is a GOD of the Gaps argument, and it's fallacious. We already know what did it. It's called energy. Life is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Knowing what did it is different from knowing exactly how it happened. You might want to read up on the sections in my post that deal with complex adaptive systems, and self-organization. And learn what that means in terms of biochemistry and evolution. I even provided you an example of prions..

If you have read my other posts you will discover that I do not believe that God created every single species of plants and animals that exist or ever have existed.

Ok, what did? Seems you are going down the path of self-refuting arguments.

lies have the ability to change to different types of flies.

Have you bothered to look up genetics in dealing with flies and other insects? I don't think you do.. But let's outline something you should know:

True flies are insects of the order Diptera (from the Greek di = two, and ptera = wings). They possess a pair of wings on the mesothorax and a pair of halteres, derived from the hind wings, on the metathorax. Apart from secondarily flightless insects (including some flies), the only other order of insects with any form of halteres are the Strepsiptera, and theirs are on the mesothorax, with the flight wings on the metathorax.

The Diptera comprise a large order, containing an estimated 240,000 species of mosquitoes, gnats, midges and others, although under half of these (about 120,000 species) have been described.[2] It is one of the major insect orders both in terms of ecological and human (medical and economic) importance. The Diptera, in particular the mosquitoes (Culicidae), are of great importance as disease transmitters, acting as vectors for malaria, dengue, West Nile virus, yellow fever, encephalitis and other infectious diseases.

So tell me, are flies gnats? How about mosquitoes? No? Why is that? Is your next argument going to be they are all insects? How about that they are all carbon based life forms! Because by your argument, carbon based life shouldn't be able to diversify.. And this surely shouldn't have happened under your argument:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Abstract:

This two-become-one evolutionary process, common among plants, has long been considered extremely rare and unimportant among animals. The new study, based on a fly species found in the northeastern United States, suggests otherwise.

The Lonicera fly evolved as a hybrid of two existing U.S. species, the blueberry maggot and the snowberry maggot, according to the study. The newfound species is named after the honeysuckle plant (scientific name: Lonicera), which the insect's life cycle revolves around.

Horses are able to change both in appearance and size, however, they still maintain the same general body type.

Evolution is not dictated by body type. And you will have a big problem with that argument when dealing with lizards vs snakes and snakes that have legs to which are not lizards. Hence, it's obvious you have no understanding of evolution or time scales of evolution. And please define body type because horses have several different body types... Horses have four legs and a tail just like a dog. Please define "body type" for us.

the horse and their ancestors still have the same basic body plan, although their body may have somewhat changed over the years.

This is like saying two houses have the same blue prints but are different. One's a condo and another is a duplex.... Hey, all life is carbon based and thus all life have the same body plan? And evolution does not state that new species would require a great deal of deviation from their ancestors either. It depends only on what actually changes in the genetics. But lets look at the supposed horses evolutionary body plans:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.jpg

Yep, one looks closer to a dog plan than a horse plan.. That's some huge skeletal differentiation there son... Heck, this looks more like a deer or goat..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euroh ... rvulus.jpg

And these definitely don't look like horses either:

http://www.contentparadise.com/productD ... x?id=18601

So using "Body type" as an argument against evolution is nonsensical. Especially when evolution doesn't actually state that this will happen or not. And if you really want to get owned in that debate, we can move on to plant evolution in this respect.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:
the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials…


vvvv ---------- Critical_Thinker 1/13/2012 post -------------------- vvvvv
Hi Jackelantern. Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate your providing a great deal of detail rather than giving quick, vague responses, although I could have done without your sarcasm. It is distracting and not necessary, and for me, it weakens your arguments to resort to such tone. If you want to be viewed upon as being credible, then you need to tone down you false accusations.

Just because we disagree on some issues does not necessarily indicate that I am ignorant, it might indicate that you and I view the same evidence from different perspectives. If some things cannot be explained from natural occurrences, then the subject is open to interpretation. If one believes there is no God, then one will need to assume that whatever occurred had to have developed by natural causes, for there is no other explanation for them. This would be an assumption, just as one claiming that anything that is unexplainable is explained by a Creator.
I am only looking for facts so that I may form my own opinions. It is true that those who believe in a Deity are not able to prove there is a God or that God created everything. We humans are left with only the available evidence which includes our ability to conduct relative experiments and our ability to reason. This is why I am asking questions to determine whether a Creator did it or if everything developed as a result of natural causes. If there is substantial evidence that indicates that everything occurred naturally, then one most likely will conclude that no Creator was involved. However, if science has not yet been (or appears to never will be able) able to explain some development, then one may be inclined to believe that something or Someone beyond our comprehension did it. This may be what you call “God of the Gaps.�

If you have read my other posts you will discover that I do not believe that God created every single species of plants and animals that exist or ever have existed. Currently, through my research, it appears that organisms are only able to change to a certain degree and then are no longer able to change any further. For example, flies have the ability to change to different types of flies. Horses are able to change both in appearance and size, however, they still maintain the same general body type. The bottom line, however, is that the horse and their ancestors still have the same basic body plan, although their body may have somewhat changed over the years.

At this point I am trying to determine whether science is able to explain life or whether some aspects of life are so far unexplainable.

Already has. It has for a very long time. It's called electromagnetism... What you are looking for is how does life evolve? Well, that will be a never ending study simply because life will never stop evolving, and the fact that difference species of animals and plants will evolve differently from each other since there are many driving causes that cause life to evolve. And this largely has to do with environmental changes and interactions. Evolution doesn't guarantee success either.

evolutionists who disagree with Darwin’s theory.

Darwin is nothing more than a small fraction of what modern evolution theory is based on.. Darwin didn't even scratch the surface. Evolution theory is way beyond Darwin. Darwin work is something you learn in grade school. It's like learning basic math when the field of mathematics goes right up into quantum physics.

. If some of the material I present is inaccurate or totally false, I am expecting you to explain why you believe it is false

I did.. But the first thing you need to drop here is the typical GOD of the GAPS argument without providing any evidence to support GOD did anything.. Hence, the Gaps you suggest are also Gaps in your own position...

Don’t attack me.

Then use honest discourse and refrain from typical creationists discourse. :/

Is genetics your area of expertise? Fossils, however, still remain valuable in studying evolution, for how else is one to determine what creatures evolved from which creatures?

I have a very good idea of how genetics works. My expertise deals with information theory, and information science. I understand the concept principles of chemistry, physical information systems theory, and how energy relates to such systems. We determine which by the evidence, and the genetics. Fossils are just a small part of evolution theory.

Are you accusing me of playing the “GOD of the GAPS� game? Where did you get this idea? Where have you read that I ever mentioned God? I thought this is supposed to be a scientific discussion, not a theological one.

Firstly, you posted creation.com... And you literally used creationist talking points to which were circular, and a play for a GOD of the GAPS argument... Don't sit there an pretend like it never happened. That's simply insulting my intelligence.

such as comparing chimpanzee chromosomes with human chromosomes?

Firstly, Chromosome number 2 was linked in my first post. 2ndly, chromosomes are not the only thing that governs the differences in our DNA to which makes us different. However, the fusion of Chromosome 2 is not refutable, and really is the major difference between us and them that sent us down two difference evolutionary paths. And it's interesting that you discuss body types above as one of your main arguments.. Apes are just apes right? According to your previous argument, our evolution should be an issue.

If you would like to provide genetic evidence that demonstrates that one creature is related to another, I would welcome the material.

Already have. Flies being one of them.. Or you can read this to better understand how we can do that:

Evidence from genetics.

The genomes of all organisms contain overwhelming evidence for evolution. All living species share the same basic mechanism of heredity using DNA (or RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed from parent to offspring, and which are transcribed and translated into proteins during each organism’s life. Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor. Within this tree of life, there are also occasional reticulations where two branches fuse, rather than separate. (For example, mitochondria are organelles found in the cells of plants and animals. Mitochondria have their own genes, which are more similar to genes in bacteria than to genes on the chromosomes in the cell nucleus. Thus, one of our distant ancestors arose from a symbiosis of two different cell types.) The genetic similarity between species, which exists by virtue of evolution from the same ancestral form, is an essential fact that underlies biomedical research. This similarity allows us to begin to understand the effects of our own genes by conducting research on genes from other species. For example, genes that control the process of DNA repair in bacteria, flies, and mice have been discovered to influence certain cancers in humans. These findings also suggest strategies for intervention that can be explored in other species before testing on humans.

Or you can visit :

http://www.genome.gov/10001691
http://www.genome.gov/11509542
Chimps and humans
Humans and Cats
Cows and humans
75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans
90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome
99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans
The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans
About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.

Or:

The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.

Contrary to what you might believe, it cannot adequately be determined what occurred in the past by only examining organisms that are in existence today.

Umm yes we can.. Because what we observe today is every reflective of what see in the evidence of the past. Even the human genome is still changing to this very day, and has changed since even the middle ages. And you might want to learn the genetic differences between races such as Caucasians and Asians.. Guess what, that happened via evolution!.

“There is little evidence to support the view that mammals evolved from reptiles. Not only is there a lack of intermediate fossils, but it is hard to see how it could possibly have happened.

many so called reptiles are warm blooded and have characteristics of mammals.. As was already pointed out to you.. Hence, mammal like reptiles. kinda like this one:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 330a0.html

However, in ability to see how it can happen is like trying to argue how you fail to see how lung-less salamanders can happen The Four- toed Salamander and the Two-lined Salamander have lungs.. So you are skeptical how a species can evolve internal organs? That's like being skeptical about finch evolution or how birds evolved shorter wings to better cope with inner city life..

And tell me, is a salamander an amphibian or a lizard? This is going back to your body type argument...

The main question is, how could mammals evolve their jaw and ear from a reptile jaw?

Mammal like reptiles had similar jaw structures. The ape family does too.. And the amphibians, or even that horse argument you wanted to make falls under the same argument you are making here. All it takes is a change in genetics.

All reptiles have a lower jaw made up of at least four separate bones on each side, and a single bone in each ear.

Let me guess, you got this from creation.com ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

The lower jaw of living mammals, including humans, is made up of just one bone, the dentary. Some accessory jawbones (called the angular, the articular and the prearticular) that are present in mammal-like reptiles, which gave rise to the mammals, eventually ended up as part of the middle ear in mammals: the angular became the ectotympanic or tympanic ring that supports the eardrum; and the articular and prearticular became the malleus—one of the three bones in the middle ear that transmits sound from the eardrum to the inner ear, where nerves pick up the vibrations from sounds and make it possible for mammals to hear.

In most modern reptiles, the jawbones in question actually function in transmitting sound waves to the inner ear, so the transformation postulated above is not a functional change, merely an improvement in a fnction that these bones already had. .. But lets move along to what a creationists likes to argue:

Arthur N. Strahler:

"A transitional form must have had two joints in operation simultaneously (as in the modern rattlesnake), and this phase was followed by a fusion of the lower joint." (Strahler 1987, p. 414)

Well..That is complete conjecture and assumption.. Hence, he's asserting it must have happened this way. Why does he say this? Well, like a typical Creationist, they have evidence to hide. Evidence they know their followers or the masses won't bother taking the time to look up in regards to the subject and the actual fossil record... Hence, he's posting pseudoscience!.. So lets see what he's hiding:

The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian."

Example:

"Probainognathus, a small cynodont reptile from the Triassic sediments of Argentina, shows characters in the skull and jaws far advanced toward the mammalian condition. Thus it had teeth differentiated into incisors, a canine and postcanines, a double occipital condyle and a well-developed secondary palate, all features typical of the mammals, but most significantly the articulation between the skull and the lower jaw was on the very threshhold between the reptilian and mammalian condition. The two bones forming the articulation between skull and mandible in the reptiles, the quadrate and articular respectively, were still present but were very small, and loosely joined to the bones that constituted the mammalian joint . . . Therefore in Probainognathus there was a double articulation between skull and jaw, and of particular interest, the quadrate bone, so small and so loosely joined to the squamosal, was intimately articulated with the stapes bone of the middle ear. It quite obviously was well on its way towards being the incus bone of the three-bone complex that characterizes the mammalian middle ear." [Colbert and Morales, 1991, pp. 228-229]

Imagine that, it shows up in the fossil record! Accept for the fact it didn't happen like said Creationist claimed how it must happen, or how it must look like in the transitional fossils. And yes, creationists do this sort of pseudoscience knowingly. Rule of thumb here, don't get your information from creation.com.. You would have just as much luck getting real information from FlatEarthSociety.org.

In every known mammal, either alive or extinct, the opposite is true.

FALSE!!!..

Ignoring the source, do you, Jackelantern, agree or disagree with the above comments? If you disagree with the content, would you explain why you disagree?

Yes because your source is utter crap. Literally utter self-invented and dishonest pseudoscience. Well crafted for the ignorant who won't bother actually doing any research. I even had to debunk Sarfati on Earth's Early atmosphere. It's actually disgusting how utterly dishonest Creationism is. Here is something you should do before continuing with me on this subject.. Google the videos "Why do Creationists Get Laughed At" .. And you will see 90 percent of the crap you find on creation.com get debunked by real science.

This seems to contradict what one would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor.

Umm no it doesn't... And the dishonesty in this argument is obvious:

However, the similar body structures of some wasps from developmental pathways are entirely different from those of fruit flies, and are also different from other wasps.

Wasps and flies are separate species. Comparing separate species in their current state in such a way, is actually bad science entirely. In fact, the guy that came up with that argument doesn't have any degrees in Biology, or biochemistry. And really tells me that you do not understand how evolution works. Quoting a lawyers thoughts on Homology is hilarious.. So let's correct you because the moron doesn't seem to even know what Homologous is.

Homologous[Etymology 1] traits of organisms are due to sharing a common ancestor, and such traits often have similar embryological origins and development. This is contrasted with analogous traits: similarities between organisms that were not present in the last common ancestor of the taxa being considered but rather evolved separately.

Hence, comparing current separate species with already huge divergent gaps is just utterly moronic. And you quoting a lawyer that doesn't know a damn thing about what he's talking about is pretty bad. You will also find similar definitions in all the textbooks on evolutionary biology. Thus, when two structures are homologous they are, by definition, descended from common ancestral genes and share the same embryological history. If they do not share the same ancestral genes, then they are not homologous for the purposes of classification. Insect wings, for example, are not homologous to the wings of birds.

As it's commonly said in the real science community:

Johnson doesn't know what he's talking about, but why should he? He's not an expert in evolution. He's a lawyer.

And yes, you can find him in those "Why do Creationists Get Laughed At" videos.. Do us favor, don't post crap from people pretending to be scientists, or biologists. You will just embarrass yourself.

My, Critical_Thinker, quote posted on 1/10/2012 regarding Dr. Craig Venter’s experiment: “Synthetic, involves designed from scratch, not copied from a natural genome… the entire organism must be successfully produced from raw materials…

Yep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... -life-form

And for the creationists, synthetic life also means a living organism not naturally occurring. Hence we can ask for you to please point to me where synthesized life is existing naturally outside the lab. They are also on the verge of creating non-organic living organisms here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091625.htm
http://www.science20.com/curious_cub/in ... life-82707

Fun stuff..

You, Jackelantern, are correct in stating that organisms consist of atoms, however, what you fail to explain is how DNA with information could have developed from non-intelligence.

Electromagnetism. You do understand that life is an electromagnetic phenomenon right? How much of my original post did you actually bother to read? BTW, in biology, physics ect..., Energy =/= information = force = cause.. Learning what the four stages of matter are, what the periodic table is, the difference in atoms are, and how that relates to biochemistry and the chemical diversity of our Planet might just be a good starting point for you. Your argument is as bad as asking me to explain how snowflakes form complex structures from non-intelligence. Yeah, water being made of atoms to should be too dumb to make complex snowflakes right?

How is nylon-eating bacteria proof of evolution? I agree that organisms
sometimes change to adapt to their environment

FACE PALM! :O Please see the definition of evolution in my original post.. And what's worse is that you go on trying to argue against it while admitting to it.. Seriously, I suggest you read my first post and get at least a grade school understanding of evolution before engaging this discussion any further.

What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on a PC — and then saying you have created a computer.

You let us know how one can create existence itself and the substance of existence.. Because Creationism is like analogous to taking the substance of existence and creating a thing of existence while falsely claiming you actually created something without needing anything to create something with to begin with. Oh that wasn't the same argument in different words was it? Perhaps you can make a relevant argument?

I read the information you, Jackelantern, suggested.

I highly doubt that. It would take you at least a month to go through all of what I posted and actually digest and understand it. And I can tell by your responses that you definitely have not.

how life could have originated on this planet.

Look up the periodic table.. That might be your first big clue.

Neither the prion discussions nor the co-evolutions document even hinted about origins.

Origins is what you are made of. Life is an electromagnetic phenomenon. And no, science will never claim how exactly life began because there is no way to rewind the tape and see the exact process take place.

The articles about prion discuss how prion causes diseases in animals and humans. I discussed co-evolution in a previous post.

You didn't read my prion example did you? And btw, prions were shown to evolve outside the body in a lab to adapt to conditions outside of the body. The purpose is to show evolutionary processes taking place. And it demonstrates exactly that.

The article, “Green Sea Slug Is Part Animal, Part� from Wired Science, you, Jackelantern, suggested does not discuss origins at all.

Nope, it was discussing Evolution and not abiogenesis.. You do know the difference right? Of course you do, Im sure you've had this discussion 100 times over while pretending to not know or understand the differences.

It is a discussion of how the slug Elysia chlorotica survives on photosynthesizing organelles and some genes from algae.

No, it's a discussion on information science / theory in dealing with evolution. More specifically in dealing with horizontal gene transfer.

To illustrate that life can form by natural processes, one must demonstrate how various chemicals could come together naturally, and form life.

Please see the periodic table... And yes, electromagnetism is the answer you are looking for.

So far, none of the web links you suggested discusses how life could have originated from non-living matter.

Life is made of atoms, and atoms made of energy. Energy is a state of matter. Vacuum energy is the ground state of matter.. Life is a phenomenon of energy. We already know life originated from non-living matter because it made from it!..

How do you propose how life could have originated?

The elements on the periodic table, and electromagnetism.

We need to first agree on what constitutes life and what the smallest organism could be that would be considered a living thing. I believe that a cell is the smallest organism that is considered life. Amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA are not considered living organisms.

I would state that for something to be considered a living organism, it must be able to reproduce itself, eat and eventually die. Do you agree?

Fire meets everyone of those conditions. DNA nano robots meet that definition.. And a living organism is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Just like fire is.. Fire can even metabolize. Life is simply animate matter if you really want to get down to it. And this is why scientists include the ability to evolve in the definition of life. Otherwise we could point to even a little river and call it a living thing.

If we believe that the cell is the simplest life form, then we should concentrate on how the first cell could have originated by natural means.

They already have ideas on how this could have happened. But proving that is impossible considering we are not sitting on a pre-life planet atm, or in the time period when life first began.

Of all the various types of amino acids, living organisms use only twenty types of amino acids. In order for the correct amino acids to form, the correct chemical bases must be present. The correct arrangement of chemicals (A, G, C, U) must be in place to create the correct RNA, which is utilized to create an amino acid. Not only must the correct letters (chemicals, bases) be present to create the correct amino acid, the correct syntax rules must be followed or no protein will be developed from the amino acids. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations are needed.

Yep.. and your point is? .. Oh wait, this is where you get this stuff from:

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-bi ... mpossible/

and you know what your argument really rests in? The probability argument:

search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

I highlighted the key areas of total utter fail in that argument. Do you know what the probability of the emergence of a conscious state is in regards to information theory and information science?.. You think life has an impossible probability, you really have no chance of every consciously being here! Probability arguments are a laughable joke. Guess what, consciousness is an emergent property than can not exist without cause. A mindless house plant is more likely to exist than anything conscious. Reactionary systems, and basic biochemistry is incredibly less complex than what is required to support cognitive functionality, or cognitive dynamics and systems.. That argument you posted, that which was copy pasted from a creationist website, is utter nonsense unfortunately!

RNA molecule would need information to function, just as DNA would, which goes right back to the same problem of where the information came from.

Same problem applies to consciousness. Except it's a much bigger problem for creationists than evolution theory. It's funny that Creationists do not understand information theory, or information science. You can feel free to read this article here:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

Abstract:

Energy =/= information =/= cause

This is unarguable:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

In my opinion, this effectively rules out any chance origin of a primitive replicating system.

Please review the ABC's.

Ignoring the source, if the above is false, would you please explain why it is not true or direct me to literature that refutes these claims?

Because you are attempting to refute a system in which consciousness itself is required to need in order to even be an emergent property, much less function at all. You think you need a billion billion billion billion rna molecules, well, I wonder how much information you think it takes to support just the primitive state of awareness. You know, something like that of an ant or flea.

So, there’s nothing chemically that forces the letters of DNA into any particular sequence.

Jackelanern, do you know where this sequencing came from?

It's called electromagnetism. And it's the same force that is involved in chemical bonds..Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electromagnetism is also the force which attracts electrons to an atomic nucleus to form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules... please try again..

Why do you, Jackelantern, assume that I am a creationist because I have questions? Because I am not a firm evolutionist you categorize me as a creationist? What is your problem?

Because they are Christians!! You have read the bible right? And because you are quoting creationist arguments directly from their websites. How dumb do you seriously think I am here? :/ Worse yet, you didn't site the sources you copy pasted from.

Since
you seem to refer to the Bible so much, I thought I would note that the Bible also agrees that humans consist of chemicals from the Earth: “… the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.�(Genesis 2:7 NIV)

Dust and oxygen isn't going to make a person.. please try again. We are not breathing dirt people Quoting the bible for me was quite a pointless thing to do.

The article from http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/ (“Self-Organizing mechanism of biosystems: asymmetric dentisy radio of purine and pyrimidine in RNA,� – Ken Naitoh) verifies what the Bible states: “… for dust you are and to dust you will return.� (Genesis 3:19 NIV)

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.�

Bible does no such thing. It doesn't talk about genetics, biochemistry, complex adaptive systems, information science, self-organizing systems, or anything remotely close to them. What you have here is a primitive sheepherders understanding of death and decomposition... Quot mining the bible and then claiming it has answers to something it does not have the answers to, or even remotely discusses is utterly pathetic.

I only mentioned these verses because you, Jackelantern, are so inclined to mention God and the Bible (of course in a derogatory manner) whenever you get the chance. The Bible does not contradict factual science. The theory of Evolution is not so factual.

Am I supposed to love a fictional character? Much less one that supposedly commits murder, genocide, and infanticide? And sorry, it doe contradict science. People are not made of dust.

he reason why the Bible mentions that the first human was made from “the dust of the ground� was because when the book of Genesis was written, no one knew anything about DNA, RNA, chromosomes, ribosomes, amino acids, proteins, or polymers.

DUH!! and it's exactly why it's a worthless reference and not a science book. And I do believe that according to Christians, it's the written word of their GOD. And the GOD itself, the character in the bible, says he created man from dust... Apparently this GOD didn't know anything about DNA either, or what the hell a water molecule is. So of course the bible contradicts science. It even says Earth was created before all the stars in the universe... Fun stuff!

Because humans are similar biologically to other living things, it is possible for humans to eat plants, fruits, vegetables, and animals. If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on Earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food.

That's not an argument against evolution. It would be an argument against the sanity of a deity Christian think created life to compete and murder itself in order to reproduce a survive...

am not sure what specific reference you were referring to when you, Jackelantern, stated: “Please read my post above and understand that raw materials can involve using what we have available.� I took a guess that you were referring to the web links that I listed below.

Try harder.. It's just a few posts up.

Although the article discusses purine and pyrimidine in tRNA, codons, ribosome RNA (rRNA) and DNA, the article does not discuss how any of these could have become incorporated in a cell, nor does the article discuss how the information contained in DNA could have been obtained. Information requires knowledge. The question remains: “How did the first cell develop?�

The purpose of the cited article did not deal with your argument.. Hence, you ignored the premise behind self-organizing systems in biochemistry.. and you are playing a GOD of the Gap game here. Worst of all, you failed utterly in one key area in your statement. I highlighted it for you..

Information requires knowledge.

You have this backwards... and that is the crux of your argument. Knowledge is a body if information, a base of inquiry.. No different the the concept of the RNA, DNA, TNA, you have discussed above. You are talking about physical information, and you seem to know nothing about information science, or information theory. Hence, knowledge can not exist without information. Intelligence can not exist without knowledge to which acts as a base of inquiry. Intelligence is only the ability to apply knowledge. And that means having access to memory, just like a computer or a living cell. A conscious state is even more complex in this regard.. So I am going to quote information science, and information theory here for you:

Nothing begins with consciousness: Everything begins and ends with information

“How did the first cell develop?�

How did the first conscious state develop?

The problem with any scenario regarding how life may have originated from chemicals by natural means, the problem of how cells could have formed on their own must be overcome.

Unfortunately for you, this is a bigger problem for creationists.

If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy the protein is said to hydrolyze. The same is true of DNA and RNA.�

You really need to read up on volcanic activity. Especially deep sea vents. I also didn't mention oil seeps for no reason. And again, we are talking about electromagnetism.

For any discussion about the origins of life on Earth, what would be needed to be convincing is a step by step process of how life could have originated from raw materials, along with how the information in DNA, RNA, tRNA developed.

Electromagnetism.

If this cannot be done, then the concept that life developed on its own by natural means will remain an unproved theory. So far, I have read nothing to substantiate such claims.

Life is an electromagnetic phenomenon... Yes, energy did the work.. The claim is already established. Your question only remains in how that happened on a step by step process... And this is a bigger problem for creationists than it is for those studying abiogenesis.

There is nothing wrong with developing hypotheses. After all, aren’t theories developed from them?

Creationism isn't a very good hypothesis since it falls victim to it's own arguments. Just keep that in mind.

The problem is that most of a meteor is vaporized on impact with our atmosphere and therefore the survival potential for organisms would be very low.

That's an assumption.

“The warm pond and hot vent theories also have been seriously disputed by experimental research that has found the half-lives of many critically important compounds needed for life to be far “too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds� (Levy and Miller, 1998, p. 7933). Furthermore, research has documented that “unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine� because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/ ... 9.471.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144517.htm

However, there can, according to them, be life at high temperature.. And this is a big problem with your argument. They are trying however to make the argument that life can not evolve when temperatures are at a certain level in this particular case. And that assumes Earth was X-hot on a global scale. Nor does it take into account of what might happen if such life moves beyond the extreme conditions it derived from. Hence there is always a temperature differentiation zone in places like deep sea vents. And the assertion of 100 years is a false claim btw since that only implies specific conditions that will never be universal on a Global scale, or even within a general area of a deep sea vent where you can have very cold arctic water mixing meeting the hot gasses being vented or released..

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_vogt.html

So I would like to know how they conducted their experiments near deep sea vents.. Especially when oil can act like a dry solvent and catalyst to life. But yes, for now a full understanding of how life began here on Earth is not complete, and it might not ever be complete since the exact order of events will never actually be known. And this is also why creationists so rely on the bogus probability argument with made up probability equations to which are literally meaningless.

I am not particularly fond of teaching creation in schools. What I am hoping for is when science is not able to explain something that it should be admitted that it is currently unknown.

Science has made no positive claims regarding abiogenesis.. As in exactly the order of events and how life derived from that. We know enough to rule out creationism however. And we know enough to know that life is an electromagnetic phenomenon to which is not yet fully understood.

I am sure you believe that small changes (micro evolution) eventually lead to major changes (macro evolution). If it were true, then, yes, they would be the same, as small changes gradually lead to a major change.

Not always lead to major changes in appearance.. The importance is the genetic changes that can lead to speciation.. However, micro evolution can lead to larger changes in physical appearance in short time scales than we often see in macro evolution over longer time scales.. What this means is that evolution doesn't necessarily follow what you think it will do or expect it will do.. And that is because the changes in the dna, depending what changes occur, will be the dictation of the results. This which was well pointed out in the video I posted.

Example:

Make a change to the windows OS and the effects will be dependent on what you changed, broke, or fixed ect. It might not boot up again... Hence, evolution doesn't = success and can often lead to a species extinction. Kinda like the dodo bird..

speciation begins by accident.

No it doesn't.. Your argument is equal to saying a ball falls to the ground by accident.. This is entirely wrong and complete ignores what gravity is. And in this case, you completely ignore what electromagnatism is and what that has to do with biochemistry, or chemistry in general. In reality, randomness only deals with our ability to predict an outcome due to the nature of the system that makes it impossible for us to predict. However, random doesn't actually exist in nature, and neither do accidents. Accidents only apply to our human nature in reference based on whether or not we do something intentionally or do something by accident... Nature doesn't do things by accident. It does things by consequence of action, process, interaction, pressure, and feedback within the system. Same system that governs things like the formation of sand dunes or snow flakes.

Speciation is therefore not the result of mutations, but is a result of various gene pools of the same species being split up, thus reducing the available genes that an offspring could acquire.

Again you display your complete lack of understanding of biochemistry and genetics. You couldn't be anymore wrong..

https://homes.bio.psu.edu/people/facult ... b0becb5252

And this is seen in the speciation process of salamanders:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

And you can find tons of examples in plant evolution.


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... in-plants/

I made the comment that I would like to have an example of a creature that currently exists that is in the process of becoming a creature with a different body type.

Plants do this all the time.. and you simply can't get it in your thick skull that body type is meaningless speciation. We determine species by genetics, and not necessarily by body type.

I never claimed that evolutionists believe that changes occur rapidly or that “evolution takes 1 day.�

Giving this conversation it pretty much seems that is what you expected.

Why are you bringing God into our discussion?

because you are posting directly from creationist websites and their arguments.

I am trying to determine whether evolution is true or not and you keep talking about God.

Consciousness for example can't be an emergent property without going through the same processes.. Evolution is a fact... How exactly it happens is what is being studied. How it happened in the past is what is being studied. The fact that it is happening right now is a fact.

Is asking for an example of a creature that is in the process of evolving into another creature too much to ask?

This only requires changes in genetics.. Body type is irrelevant.

If evolution were true, there should be multiple cases of evolution going on.

Finches, Sea Gulls, fish, salamanders, plants ect.. Twitching lizards is a fun thing to look up in regards to natural selection. Examples are everywhere...literally..

[Critical_Thinker]

vvv Critical_Thinker 01-10-2012 post vvvv:
Hi nygreenguy. I really appreciate all your correspondence. You have been very helpful. Would you explain how to use the quote system on this web site properly?

Sure. First, hit quote on my post to reply. The part most people mess up on is the stuff in the beginning and it looks like this:

So I replaced many of the / with | so you can see the code. So I just delete everything that is NOT bolded. So that is how I get the beginning of the quotes. Then at the end of the statement "web site properly" above, I put closing quote tags: [|quote] (use / instead of |) Then to respond to any paragraph of the person you want to quote, you can just highlight and hit the quote button above [the edit box].

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
Hi nygreenguy. Thank you for explaining how to you quote system. I really appreciate it.

I really do not expect you to teach me genetics. What I was hoping for were some references related to my questions and comments to read. If you would suggest some good reading material, such as web sites, journals, or even a few good reliable textbooks, I would appreciate it. As I mentioned previously, I am unable to locate reading material that address the issues I presented. I thought that since you know a great deal about evolution that you would know some good reading materials related to the comments I made. I suppose that if no documents exist that are related to my comments and questions (although I find this difficult to believe), then I would have to assume (I hate to assume) that evolutionists are not able to adequately explain the issues I presented.

The information is out there. The only two things I can suggest is talkorigins.org and do a search of the primary literature. You can use databases like google scholar, science direct, scopus, etc..

Now, as for the issue of DNA repair, try youtube. There are lots of videos on/of DNA mutation and repair. That can give you background on how and what the mechanisms of DNA replication and repair are. As for its evolution, same thing. Just look for "DNA repair mechanism evolution" or to be more descriptive you could also add "DNA polymerase".

A google scholar search of "DNA repair mechanism evolution" gives 169,000 hits.

So the material you want is out there, you just have to know how to search, and I understand it is not always easy.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I was not able to access the http://www.sciencemag.org.libezproxy2.s ... /210.short web site you suggested. The message I received was that “access is limited to faculty, staff, and currently enrolled students of Syracuse University.�

I was also not able to access the http://www.jstor.org/pss/2401132 web site you suggested, as membership to JSTOR is required. I was only able to view the abstract.

As I [critical_thinker] mentioned on 1/5/2012:
The “Land Animals to Aquatic Mammals� discussed on the Nova web site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/) is also debatable. This web site states that: “Ambulocetus … toes were webbed like those of modern mammals adapted for swimming.�

Do you know how paleontologists came to the conclusion that Ambulocetus had webbed feet? If Ambulocetus did not have webbed feet, most likely it was not a forerunner to the whale, and an intermediate would still need to be found that would link land mammals to sea creatures.

In this statement, once again, you are making claims based on incredulity. You do not know WHAT webbed feed could mean to whale evolution, so you shouldnt make conclusions based upon false premises.
Lets see if these links work for you:
http://www.sciencemag.org.libezproxy2.s ... /210.short
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2401132

On 12/31/2011 when I posted: “Anchiornis, being a reptile, most likely did not have a breathing system necessary for flight as birds have (lungs are not usually preserved in fossils). A highly movable hind-limb could not have supported the air sacs that are an essential support for the one-way flow of air through the lungs. With these issues in mind, it is doubtful whether Anchiornis could have been a forerunner to Archaeopteryx or a modern bird.� http://creation.com/anchiornis-huxleyi- ... hered-dino You responded on 1/2/2012 by stating “Once again, you are using really terrible biased, un-academic, deceptive sources which are known for lying...Are you suggesting there are no intermediates between archaeopteryx and true dinosaurs? have you read the info on wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis �

Im saying I wouldnt believe a word out of that website or any of their publications.

Wikipedia’s assessment is that Anchiornis has a “less flight-adapted profile.� I suppose if this is true, then most likely Anchiornis could not fly. This assessment appears to be in agreement in part with the description from creation.com, in that Anchiornis was not able to fly. What remains questionable is whether Anchiornis had a reptilian type respiratory system or an avian respiratory system.

Anchiornis didn't fly and archaeopteryx most likely did not either. As for evolution of the system, it took me less than 30 seconds to find several relevant articles
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03716.html

However, since Wikipedia states “[Anchiornis is] important in filling a gap in the transition between the body plans of avian birds and non-avian dinosaurs [reptiles],� however, without knowing what type of respiratory system this creature had, it would speculation to make this claim. If a reptile evolved into a bird, then at some point the reptile respiratory system needed to change to an avian respiratory system. Is there any idea when this change began? How could a reptile respiratory system have changed into an avian respiratory system?

See the link above. It also helps to follow their sources and look and see who cited them.

I realize that soft tissue (including lungs) do not preserve well in fossils, however, without knowing the full anatomy of a creature, it is difficult to determine conclusively how one could be related to the other. For me, circumstantial evidence is not sufficient, as I do not wish to make any assumptions, even if the evidence appears to be convincing.

Nearly all of science is "circumstantial evidence". It is a common error that circumstantial evidence is somehow less valid than direct evidence. In fact, direct evidence (eye-witness) is often less valid because of the nature of people and their memories. Circumstantial evidence is not biased by these things.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I believe that the field of science (other than the study of evolution) includes obtaining knowledge that is based on observation and experimentation, performed inside and outside of a laboratory. If someone wishes to test a chemical to determine what type of react it would have if mixed with other chemicals, all one needs to do is perform some tests. The results of the test will either confirm or disprove a hypothesis. In the area of evolution, it is not so obvious. The theory of gravity can be tested and observed by holding an object up then releasing the object. The theory that the Earth revolves around the sun is based on actual observations and calculations. When Nicolaus Copernicus and later Galileo Galilei suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun rather than the sun revolving around the Earth, the church (those who controlled the church and government) eventually agreed because the evidence was so overwhelming.

Where different methods are used to determine something, such as the age of the universe and the Earth, if all the methods provide the same basic result, the logic conclusion would be that the findings are pretty accurate. Since the origins of life occurred in the distant past, it is not observable, nor can it be duplicated in a natural setting (who knows for sure what chemicals existed and what percentage of chemicals consisted of during an early Earth). The field of evolution is an area of science where evidence must be evaluated and interpreted. The idea that one species evolved into another species, especially in cases such as whales having evolved from land mammals, is purely circumstantial, even though various methods have been used to determine the theory. I believe the reason why the study of evolution is so controversial is because the evidence is open to interpretation.

Although plants and animals do have the same types of cells, I was hoping you could have provided some information about the results of animals having been exposed to radiation rather than plants, as plants do not possess as many organs as animals have. What would the same amount of radiation that was used to produce ruby-red grapefruit do to the offspring of an animal, perhaps a fruit fly or a larger animal such as a rabbit?

Hey now, you cant selectively decide which evidence you will accept and which you will not. The excuse of "organs"? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This is about how radiation can cause changes in organisms. The plants were exposed to much higher than normal amounts of radiation. So if an organism can survive and produce traits under extreme conditions, then what about at ambient levels. THAT is the argument at hand here.

We are all exposed to radiation all the time and it consistently is damaging our DNA. This is a basic fact. We know that this doesnt always get repaired. Sometimes this can lead to cancer, sometimes it is harmless and sometimes it can be beneficial.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
From your response, it appears as though you are not aware of any animals that were exposed to radiation that resulted in any beneficial traits in their offspring. I appreciate your honesty in stating that radiation sometimes causes cancer or could be harmless and that sometimes radiation could be beneficial. I would rather not apply results of plants to all living things. Plants may have a different make-up for reproduction than animals do. I do not believe that we know everything there is to know about DNA and reproduction (meiosis, mitosis, gametes, etc) to make any final conclusions that are based on plants that that can applying it to animals. That is, plants do not reproduce exactly the same as animals reproduce. How often would you say that radiation would result in a beneficial trait to the offspring of the creature affected?

---

When I wrote on 1/2/2012: “I am asking if you know of any observed experiments or observed natural occurrences where a species changed to obtain different traits, other than a fly with additional useless wings or legs or a different color or when two different dogs interbreed the offspring does not look like either parent. I am referring to a creature having one type of body plan (appearance) that changed to a different body plan, such as a fly’s offspring (over many generations) looking something like a mosquito or a spider (they are all arthropods), or perhaps a rabbit, over many generations, changing to appear to look something like a raccoon (both mammals).� You responded on 1/6/2012 by stating: “Yes, fossils. Fossils are observations.� I was referring to animals that are living and still have flesh and can be observed in action. After all, if evolution still continues today (why would we think otherwise?), we should be observing multiples of animals in the process of forming new traits, such as a reptile in the process of developing wings from forelimbs, reptiles in the process of changing from scales to hair, land animals in the process of developing webbed feet, etc.

This isnt how evolution works. This is like asking someone to prove plate tectonics by showing a mountain range forming.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I disagree. If evolutionary theory stipulates that changes occur very slowly, then at some point during the intermediary period at least some trait would be visible that indicates the trait is in the process of developing some major change. If evolution were true and one assumes evolution continues today (I would see no reason why it would not) then we should witness many different types of creatures in the process, at one stage or another, of change, but we do not.

When I asked on 1/2/2012: “Do you know of any examples of creatures that appear to be in the process of forming new features or traits? If so, would you direct to the literature? I would prefer something other than fruit fly experiments that produced other types of flies. I believe Goat (12-14-2011) already provided information on fruit flies.� You responded on 1/6/2012 by stating: “Everything is. A good example are ring species.� I checked out the ring species that you suggested. The definition of a ring species I found is: “In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two ‘end’ populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each ‘linked’ species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, ‘end’ populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a ‘ring’.� (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)

Multiple forms of salamanders and sea gulls are known to illustrate the concept of ring species. Since these sea gulls are able to interbreed, in addition to nature changes of offspring, their offspring could result in different types of sea gulls. Could the changes in these creatures be the result of genes being switched on or off rather than by mutations?

If genes were just switched off, we wouldnt get the reproductive isolation.

Just as the illustration of fruit flies, the discussion of ring species salamanders, although different species of salamanders, are still salamanders. The examples of ring species, such as salamanders and sea gulls, appears to illustrate a very natural process that occurs in nature through breeding rather than through mutations. Creatures tend to develop new traits and appearances (micro evolution), however, the changes do not appear to result in a major change (macro evolution). In the case of the ring species salamanders, generally speaking, the salamanders are still salamanders, they never became anything but a salamander. In the case of the ring species sea gulls, generally speaking, the sea gulls are still sea gulls, they never became anything but a sea gulls.

This goes back to the plate tectonic analogy. We do not live long enough to observe such changes directly. The kicker is, however, we do not need to. While the salamanders are still salamanders, what was once one species, is not several. Soon, those species will not be able to breed with each other making them more and more distant. So if you can accept there being enough genetic change to allow speciation, what logically or practically stops you from accepting further changed beyond the species level?

What I was referring to was that not every aspect of evolution has been explained. If there is no explanation as to how an amphibian reproductive system could have changed to a reptilian reproductive system, how a reptilian reproductive system could have changed to a mammalian reproductive system, how a reptilian 3-chambered heart could have changed to a 4-chambered mammalian heart, how a reptilian respiratory system could have changed to an avian respiratory system, then I would suppose that there is currently no explanation as to how the differences may have developed and certain assumptions would therefore have been made for one to believe that one evolved from the other. Do you know how these changes could have occurred? I asked this before but have not yet received a response on this. Also, science seems to assume that life began from chemicals that were present during an early Earth. This is further discussed in the next section, “Origin of Life on Earth.�

A few things, first evolution has been shown to be a fact. We know dogs came from non-dogs, humans came from non-humans, etc...

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
This is debatable. If evolution were a known fact, there would not be so many debates and I would not need to do so much research. If evolution were a fact, there should be books (although I realize you do not care for books) that clearly demonstrate how evolution happened in the past as well as how it is occurring now. We both agree that there are many gaps in the fossil evidence. We also would agree that many aspects of the theory have not yet been adequately resolved and explained. It is still highly debatable that humans evolved from apes, even though apes chromosomes have been said to match human chromosomes as much as 98%. I believe this figure is misleading because researchers only used the protein coding portions of genes for their comparison. Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in “non-coding regions,� which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells. These coding regions ensure that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes. When these regions of the gene are included in a similar estimate between human and chimp, the values can drop dramatically and will vary widely according to the types of genes being compared. Most of the sequence is non-coding that is used to regulate protein production. Evolutionary scientists have used only the coding portion of a gene for comparative analyses, which in this case would just be the exon blocks 1-4. The remaining sequences, supplying critical information that specifies (1) when, (2) why, (3) how much, and (4) how often the coding region is to be transcribed into RNA, are regularly omitted from sequence comparisons. The similarity could be less, such as around 95% rather than 98%. Also, it has still not yet been explained (to the best of my knowledge) how humans obtained a great deal more intelligence than animals, including apes. I do not believe that brain size is the only reason why humans are more intelligent than apes.

Secondly, if we dont know the full details, it doesnt mean it didnt happen. Most of us do not understand fully how a car works, yet we still not surprised every time we get in that it works. We are still working on the details of how gravity works, but no one doubts its existence.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I agree. We should not, however, make assumptions that are not supported by convincing evidence either. We know for a fact that engineers know how a car works because we know a car was designed. Understanding all the details of how something works is not the same as knowing how evolution works. Something engineered and manufactured was thought out and designed. Evolutionary theory does not work this way. Evolution (neo-Darwinism) works on random mutations with natural selection. There is no direction, no purpose with evolution. We do not doubt gravity, because when we throw an object into the air, it always drops back down to the Earth.

Thirdly, because you cant find the evidence, doesnt mean it isnt out there. Im not sure exactly HOW you search for these things, but I can manage to find the answers in usually a matter of minutes. so instead of saying "I cant find it, therefore it must not exist", try being more thorough or scholarly in your research.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I did not say that since I could not find any information to answer my questions that I would give up and assume it doesn’t exist. I said that “If there is no explanation…[that is, if no explanation exists]� “then I would suppose that there is currently no explanation…� and conclude that no explanation exists. I would not assume that just because I cannot find any information on a particular subject that I am looking for indicates that it doesn’t exist. It only means that I cannot find it. That is why I purchased books, do on-line searches, and am asking you.

I thought that most of my questions were fairly basic and that someone as knowledgeable as you would either know the answer or would know where to find materials that would address my questions. Haven’t you ever wondered how a reptilian heart could have developed into a mammalian heart or how a reptilian lung could have developed into an avian lung? I realize that fossils would most likely are not be able to provide the answers, however, I thought that the subject might have been addressed, similar to how it was hypothesized how the reptilian ear/jaw gradually transformed into a mammalian ear/jaw without the reptile losing either hearing or chewing and biting abilities.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I really appreciate all the information you have provided throughout our correspondence. You have really been a big help. Thanks.

[TheJackelantern]

sorry for the messy post.. It was pretty damn late at night when I posted that. However, it's understood that the questions dealing with abiogenesis are yet to be fully answered. Creationsists basic argument is "It's impossible", and largely from a position of ignorance, and the pushing of logical fallacies like probability arguments to which had been entirely made up... Much of the information posted in terms of biochemistry ect assumes a closed system in reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics while it ignores all the other laws. And a key argument to which creationism really collapses on is the assertion that life doesn't come from non-life. This assertion that ignores the fact that life is entirely made from non-life. Non-life in which the properties allow for life to become an emergent property from non-life.

[TheJackelantern]

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I was not able to access the http://www.sciencemag.org.libezproxy2.s ... /210.short web site you suggested. The message I received was that “access is limited to faculty, staff, and currently enrolled students of Syracuse University.�

I was also not able to access the http://www.jstor.org/pss/2401132 web site you suggested, as membership to JSTOR is required. I was only able to view the abstract.

Sorry that you couldn't access the first one. However, the second one was intended as an abstract I believe... So take what you can out of that, or do some research on those... I will try to find the time to provide further info on the subject.

In this statement, once again, you are making claims based on incredulity. You do not know WHAT webbed feed could mean to whale evolution, so you shouldnt make conclusions based upon false premises.
Lets see if these links work for you:
http://www.sciencemag.org.libezproxy2.s ... /210.short
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2401132

Umm they can... And can for the same reason they can for humans having webbed feet. And here is a very good source on the subject of whales..:

http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/

Abstract:

With much gratitude to Professor Hans Thewissen for his many contributions of information and enlightening constructive criticism which helped make this collection of articles possible.

You may also want to visit Prof. Thewissen's new site "Digital Library of Dolphin Development" which includes images of tiny limb buds on dolphin embryoes.

Special Featured Articles

Pelvic bone on modern whales
Photographs of Humpback and Pilot Whale mounts contributed by the Milwaukee Public Museum with commentary by Professor Hans Thewissen.

The Evolution of Whales
Based on the sensational National Geographic article from November 2001, The Evolution of Whales. Overview of whale origins. Includes illustrations based on fossil progressions in transitional whales and dolphins. Additional comments from early whale expert and Paleontologist, J.G.M. Thewissen, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.

Hind Limb Bud Images, Dolphin Embryo and Fetus Development
Photographs of hind limb buds on a five week old Pantropical Spotted Dolphin embryo, and 1.5 to 4 month fetus development. Images courtesy of Professor J.G.M. Thewissen.

Sirenian Evolution
(Manatee, Sea Cow, Dugong)
Sirenians and Elephants are evolved from a common ancestor. Like whales, sirenians returned to the water. Though hind limbs on whales may be rare and difficult to witness, many sirenians (not all) still retain vestigial toenails like their elephant cousins, and share other traits in common with modern elephants. Includes commentary between LeVar Burton and Dr. Mark Lowe, Veterenary Science. Contains images courtesy of Reading Rainbow, PBS Television. (GPN/Nebraska Educational Telecommunications and WNED-TV, Buffalo NY).

Note this Image:

TOKYO Nov 5, 2006 (AP), Japanese scientists reported a bottlenose dolphin, has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind limbs. The dolphin was captured alive in western Japan on Oct. 28, by Fishermen. "I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land," said Seiji Osumi, of Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research. The hind fins are much smaller than the front fins and are about the size of human hands, protruding near the tail. The dolphin measured approx 9 feet in length.

Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs, Evidence Ocean Mammals Lived on Land
A Dolphin with Hind Limbs, Science Blogs
Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs, Associated Press

Basic Creationists rebuttal is "Their extra fins".. As if that would make their argument any better :/ Especially when such extra fins provide no functional purpose to a dolphin.. But in all cases where we find evolution, creationists like to play the "it's still the same body type", it's still a dolphin!!.. Same argument even when confronted with such Atavism:

Atavism is the tendency to revert to ancestral type. In biology, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations before.[2] Atavisms can occur in several ways. One way is when genes for previously existing phenotypical features are preserved in DNA, and these become expressed through a mutation that either knock out the overriding genes for the new traits or make the old traits override the new one.

Examples:

Whale pelvis and thigh bones:



Chicken Teeth:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... grows-alli


Snake limbs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... China.html




And even a fossil snake shows how snakes lost their legs:

http://www.examiner.com/paelenotology-s ... their-legs

You can find ostriches with wings, and all sorts of animals showing things you sir claim can't be done. It gets worse when creationists have to deal with realizing why humans have tailbones, and sometimes are born with fully functional tails:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEl60UCJiE

Scientists have actually discovered the tail genes inside the human genome (the Wnt-3a and Cdx1 genes). Humans contain both the gene to develop tails along with apoptosis (programmed cell death) that plays a significant role in removing the tail while humans are still in the embryo form. The tail genes are retained from distance ancestors to humans and apoptosis was adapted later during the course of our ancestors' evolution.

The above is actually more than enough evidence to prove evolution.. But no amount of evidence will be enough for a Religious group that will simply ignore it and deny it while making bad arguments about "Kinds", and "Body types"..

Anchiornis didn't fly and archaeopteryx most likely did not either. As for evolution of the system, it took me less than 30 seconds to find several relevant articles
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03716.html

The link you provided makes no statement on your assertion it wasn't able to fly, or at least glide. it does discuss it's limitations of wing flapping, and respiratory system. This however doesn't mean it couldn't fly. Even snakes can fly without wings

However, that link is not relevant to anything other than it's implications on the evolution of flight. This being a very strong level of evidence for.. And you provided me no source material that proves your premise here. You want to hold everyone else to an honest position on evolution? Well, you need to do the same.

I realize that soft tissue (including lungs) do not preserve well in fossils, however, without knowing the full anatomy of a creature, it is difficult to determine conclusively how one could be related to the other. For me, circumstantial evidence is not sufficient, as I do not wish to make any assumptions, even if the evidence appears to be convincing.

You however are using it like an argument that it magically can't.. As if salamanders with and without lungs would be impossible. It's indeed difficult to determine the entire anatomy in exacting detail. However, knowing where it's organs are, and what organs it had isn't as relevant as knowing if it was cold or warm blooded. And we can tell a lot about it's anatomy bu knowing that through the study of their bones.. And Creationists do nothing but make assumptions while arguing about educated and evidence based assumptions scientists make. Assumptions scientists do not proclaim as facts.

Where different methods are used to determine something, such as the age of the universe and the Earth, if all the methods provide the same basic result, the logic conclusion would be that the findings are pretty accurate.

They won't be exact, but yes they are pretty accurate.

Since the origins of life occurred in the distant past, it is not observable, nor can it be duplicated in a natural setting (who knows for sure what chemicals existed and what percentage of chemicals consisted of during an early Earth).

This is true to a point. However, we can determine much of that through other scientific fields that deal with studying Earth's geology, rocks ect ect.. The actual natural setting in exact detail will never be known. This I do not disagree on.. However, the peridodic table consists of everything that did exist here. And life is entirely compliant to the periodic table. Now if you found something that isn't on the periodic table, that would be different, and you might have had an actual point.

The field of evolution is an area of science where evidence must be evaluated and interpreted. The idea that one species evolved into another species, especially in cases such as whales having evolved from land mammals, is purely circumstantial,

Having a pelvis bone and a thigh bone is not exactly circumstantial.. Knowing what a pelvis or a thigh bone is, pretty much kills that entire argument.. Just like knowing what a tail bone is and why we humans still have them. Hardly just conjecture.. I know you want to play a gap argument, but nothing you have posted even remotely comes close to discrediting evolution.

even though various methods have been used to determine the theory. I believe the reason why the study of evolution is so controversial is because the evidence is open to interpretation.

Yep, those tail bones and salamanders is all just "interpretation".... /sarcasm.. No, what is really open to interpretation is the fallacious kinds argument / body type argument to which ignores genetics entirely, and is easily debunked with it's own argument.

I would rather not apply results of plants to all living things. Plants may have a different make-up for reproduction than animals do. I do not believe that we know everything there is to know about DNA and reproduction (meiosis, mitosis, gametes, etc) to make any final conclusions that are based on plants that that can applying it to animals. That is, plants do not reproduce exactly the same as animals reproduce. How often would you say that radiation would result in a beneficial trait to the offspring of the creature affected?

Let me chime in here. Radiation is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and so is life. Radiation will have an effect on life for very obvious reasons. This to which includes determining male or female kin in various reptiles... What you need to realize is that you are trying to make an argument that is largely subjective to what type of radiation, how much, how much exposure, and what effect it may or may not have on any given living organism. Just the structure of an organism can influence how much of an effect it would have. Hence, this would apply to chaos theory, and you can not make predictions on systems that are chaotic. This discussion point is way to broad for this discussion. And for a beneficial trait, radiation effects trait development:

http://www.cid-inc.com/docs/CI-203%20Th ... pecies.pdf

http://www.mendeley.com/research/effect ... poraria-1/

Whether or not radiation promotes beneifical trait development is not relevant since it can go either way.. It could have no effect as well.. But giving that life is an electromagnetic phenomenon, it's safe to assume the obvious that radiation can promote beneficial traits in organisms.

01-14-2012 Critical_Thinker response:
I disagree. If evolutionary theory stipulates that changes occur very slowly, then at some point during the intermediary period at least some trait would be visible that indicates the trait is in the process of developing some major change.

No it doesn't.. Change can happen rather quickly. The length of birds wings in the inner cities being a prime example.. All evolution states, in the most simplistic context, is genetic changes over time.. Or even more simply "Changing"... And it matters not how much or how little that change is.

If evolution were true and one assumes evolution continues today (I would see no reason why it would not) then we should witness many different types of creatures in the process, at one stage or another, of change, but we do not.

Please revisit the definition of evolution. And we have witnessed it, but you continue to ignore it...

If genes were just switched off, we wouldnt get the reproductive isolation

Good thing we don't play with "IF" here since that would require ignoring the mutations involved. And here is literally pages and pages of mutations in genomes:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mut ... i=scholart

This goes back to the plate tectonic analogy. We do not live long enough to observe such changes directly.

False!.. And a very poor analogy giving that we witness that all the time. We do live long enough to see evolutionary changes. However, you likely won't live long enough to see your Crockaduck.. But don't worry, the chickens are developing teeth..

The kicker is, however, we do not need to. While the salamanders are still salamanders, what was once one species, is not several.

Life is life, and all life is electromagnetic phenomenon. Carbon based that is.. Please stop using the "Kinds argument" since it's utterly nonsense and has no value what-so-ever in the discussion of evolution. So I want you to tell me the difference between a snake, an eel, and a limbless salamander...

Soon, those species will not be able to breed with each other making them more and more distant.

Yup...

So if you can accept there being enough genetic change to allow speciation, what logically or practically stops you from accepting further changed beyond the species level?

A religious belief system is what he's stuck on.

If evolution were a known fact, there would not be so many debates and I would not need to do so much research.

Debates only deal with religious Creationists to whom have an religious ideology / myth to protect. Hence, they are displaying survival of the fittest because their ideology is threatened by evolution, science, logic, and reason...

If there is no explanation as to how an amphibian reproductive system could have changed to a reptilian reproductive system, how a reptilian reproductive system could have changed to a mammalian reproductive system, how a reptilian 3-chambered heart could have changed to a 4-chambered mammalian heart,

Electromagnetism / self-organization. And you might ask why humans have tail bones.. We know evolution occurred, and not knowing exactly how organs alter or change via step by step process is not really relevant to establishing evolution as a fact of nature.

I believe this figure is misleading because researchers only used the protein coding portions of genes for their comparison.

Please learn more about genetics before making claims of "Misleading" figures. Especially peer reviewed papers on the human genome.

Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients.

Not relevant.. You can have just as much variance between human races in these areas. FUN STUFF!

Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in “non-coding regions,� which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells. These coding regions ensure that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes. When these regions of the gene are included in a similar estimate between human and chimp, the values can drop dramatically and will vary widely according to the types of genes being compared. Most of the sequence is non-coding that is used to regulate protein production. Evolutionary scientists have used only the coding portion of a gene for comparative analyses, which in this case would just be the exon blocks 1-4.

Funny, no peer reviewed journal exists for this argument.. Please provide an actual source to this assertion. Because from what I understand of how they do genome comparisons, this is a load of self-invented crap. And I did some digging, Brian hasn't published any science journals on this issue what-so-ever. No surprise there.. What's even worse, have you ever read any papers he's had published? Yep, nothing about creationism, and nothing that even supports it. Also, the area in which he's talking about is also accounted for. And you are talking about the same guy who believes dinosaurs ate rice and were people pets while pretending to be an expert in cosmology, physics, astrophysics, or other science fields he has no PHD in..

In fact you get things like this from people like him:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... otope.html

Remember when I warned you about posting pseudoscience, or creationists who pretend to be scientists in fields they do not hold PHD's in? He uses religious dogma and miss represents what actual scientists say, and what actual scientific journals say .. He's has no peer reviewed journals on anything he's made claim to. Do me a favor, don't post material from such utter trash..

And he's been caught lying here to :

http://www.caoimghgin.blogspot.com/

I thought that most of my questions were fairly basic and that someone as knowledgeable as you would either know the answer or would know where to find materials that would address my questions.

Having questions is fine.. However, citing non credible sources such as Brian, or even someone like Sarfati is not a wise idea. Especially creationist fundamentalists to whom are waging a pseudoscience war on the entire institution of science. You are citing people who quote mine other science research out of context, and those who make stuff up with supernatural assertions to their religious ideology in blogs ect.. It's also why he's been attacking the peer review process since he can't get his garbage published.

[Autodidact]

Critical_Thinker:

Think about this. For 100 years after Darwin proposed his groundbreaking theory, the smartest people in the world tried to knock it down. They proposed every possible objection, and over time, each and every objection was refuted. Finally, Biology realized that the riddle of the origin of species had been solved, accepted the theory, and based modern Biology on it.

Do you really think you're going to come up with some fatal flaw at this point? Biology uses it because it works. That's the fact; it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be a foundational theory of modern Biology. Within Biology, there is no longer any controversy about this theory; the issue is settled. The only controversy as this point is between Biology, which is to say science, and anti-science. If the scientific method works, then the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is correct, because it has been tested according to that method and found to be correct. The people who are arguing against ToE are arguing against using science as a way to learn about the world, in favor of magic and superstition.

Are you one of those people?