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?

[otseng]

Serve the father of all lies if that is your choice ... pride will not allow you to turn, even if you have to eat the pig-slop.

Moderator Warning


Such language is not in concordance with a civil debate. Please refrain from making personal comments of any sort.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TheJackelantern]

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inheritedtraits found in inter-breeding populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical orbehavioural characteristics, that result from gene–environment interactions. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation,genetic recombination andgene flow. This process has produced all the diversity of living organisms.

Twitching lizards are an example of evolution. However, to better understand other aspects of evolution, you can read the following:

--

Here is the definition of Micro Evolution:

Microevolution is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

--

Here is the definition of Macro Evolution:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

--

Here is the definition of speciation:

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages. Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments. Observed examples of each kind of speciation are provided throughout.

[b]Example difference between micro a ... 95Hy-te7-E

And how about more specific papers on electromagnetism and life:

http://www.biotele.com/EL/ELTOC.html
http://n.b5z.net/i/u/12000008/f/MSelect ... ook_1_.pdf

Electromagnetism is responsible for practically all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electromagnetism is also the force which holds electrons and protons together inside atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons inside and between atoms.

In short, you can't have a living organism without the electromagnetic force to which is one of the prime drivers to self-organizing molecules. And we can look into Organic compounds vs inorganic compounds:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -life.html

scientists have discovered that simple peptides can organize into bi-layer membranes. The finding suggests a “missing link� between the pre-biotic Earth’s chemical inventory and the organizational scaffolding essential to life.

“This is a boon to our understanding of large, structural assemblies of molecules,� says Emory Chemistry Chair David Lynn, who helped lead the effort, which were collaborations of the departments of chemistry, biology and physics. “We’ve proved that peptides can organize as bi-layers, and we’ve generated the first, real-time imaging of the self-assembly process. We can actually watch in real-time as these nano-machines make themselves.�

Organic – Inorganic Nano-Hybrid Materials

Or:

in 1828, a chemist named Friedrich Wöhler accidently created urea. Urea was a compound that mammals produced to get rid of excess nitrogen. Urea is secreted in their urine. Friedrich created it using inorganic (non-living) salts. Everyone was surprised, but chemists then knew that it was possible to create chemicals found in the body using chemicals from the ground or air (non-living sources). So now organic compounds were not defined as only those compounds from organisms, but compounds based on carbon.

http://www.chemistryland.com/Elementary ... rganic.htm

--

EVOLUTION IN ACCORDANCE TO INFORMATION SCIENCE:

The following below is an example electromagnetic phenomenon:

I will give you examples of how information theory works in biology and evolution. This falls under Physical information theory and information theory that deals with any pattern of information that influences the transformation of other patterns into new patterns of information. Here information is not lost, it just simply changes value, function, purpose, state, or behavior. So All of which is below are examples of physical information theory. This includes Chaos theory in regards to "sefl-organization"

Protein: Thermodynamics
Photon Energy and Life
Photon is the energy evolution of everything
Synthetic Life 1
Video: Synthetic Life 2
Self Orgainization and Complexity
Self organizing algorithms through the study of RNA
Gene self-organizing maps
Self-Organizing Biochemical cycles
Physical Role in Biochemical Self Organization

Enzymes and self-organizing collective dynamics:

Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.

RNA:

* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162009.htm
* http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/

Further synthetic life links:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life
* http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html

DNA Robots:

* http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php
* http://lcsr.jhu.edu/wiki/images/e/e6/Ch ... 200711.pdf

DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:

http://anguishedrepose.com/2010/06/01/s ... nside-you/

The Self-organized gene:

* http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/th ... ne-part-1/

The human Genome in relation to apes. Its the fusion of a chromosome 2:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Genotypic speciation of heterotrophic bacteria:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15524705

Introduction: to species and speciation in micro-organisms:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /1897.full

Everything in existence has pattern from a chaotic system with feedback in which order comes from a system of chaos. All this states is that a pattern can lead to the change of another pattern should said pattern influence and exert pressure on the other as noted below:

* "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate the pattern

* what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things, or things of representation and value. Example: genetic or, genetically transmitted information.

* Computing data as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.

* a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, energy, matter., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.

So lets look at a direct example:

We can also go here under my evolution thread concerning Prions to understand more of what material-physical information is or means, and how it's related to evolution:

http://thinkingaloudforum.com/forum/vie ... 32&t=13429

We can prove physical information theory and evolution in non-living molecules as We can in living molecules. Prions are non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt to their environment. Ju­pi­ter, Fla discovered that these Prions can develop many different kinds of mutations that help prions develop defenses to withstand against threats. Even viruses that are considered non-living but active matter that can also evolve. However, viruses have a commonality with life known as DNA, and Prions do not. Prions consist of proteins that are composed of amino acids. The mutations are different folding arrangements of the protein molecules that achieve different material physical/informational characteristics much like that of DNA.. These fold­ing arrangements play an ev­o­lu­tion­ary role in pri­ons. This follows the same premise behind the driving force commonly found in cases of co-evolution and mutualism. Sorry creationists, but Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest isn't the only driving force behind evolution. The fact that non-life or non-living active matter evolves, also means that life evolves. Evolution is proven in by co-evolution, mutation, and simple observations of existing wild life. This shows the deeper communicative connection between living active matter, non-living active matter, and inactive matter.

http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28biology%29

Furthermore, we can get even deeper into information theory and evolution by linking plant and animal into one little critter known as the Green Sea Slug. Here we can observe an example of the deeper communicative process of evolution!. The Green Sea slug can actually steal photosynthesizing organelles and genes from algae. This little slug can produce it's own chlorophyll. Also, Elysia and its genetic kleptomania is yet another example of animals undergoing the sort of horizontal gene transfer that is so commonplace in bacteria to where we can see how the flow of information is a material physical process.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... -sea-slug/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

And here is a lot of things we learned from self-organizing organisms, Genes, DNA, and the processes we find in the evolution of life:

CalResCo, an extensive website about complexity, self-organization and related subjects, including a self-organizing systems FAQ
PCC- Complexity Theory Resources, including Lecture notes on "Complexity: A New Science For A Postmodern World "
Complex Adaptive Systems and Artificial Life: an extensive list of links including conferences
Phil Goetz's complexity page, including a [url=http://www.cs.buffalo.edu/%7Egoetz/dict.html]complexity dictionary
Yaneer Bar Yam's Guide to Complex Systems
the Complexity Digest: a weekly list of summaries of articles related to complexity that appeared in various journals, a most useful service provided by G. Mayer-Kress
Evolution of Complex Systems: Umur Ozkul's collection of thoughts, essay and links
T. Tolman's Complexity of the Universe page
Complexity Online: a quite elaborate server with Hypermedia papers and pointers to other places
Complexity International: refereed electronic journal on Complex Systems Research
Information on Complex Adaptive Systems in different parts of the Internet
Bruce Edmonds's extensive Bibliography on Measures of Complexity
Santa Fe Institute for the Sciences of Complexity (ftp-server)
Science on the Edge of Chaos: an interactive multimedia service on complexity and chaos including a series of TV programmes
Nonlinearity and Complexity home page at Democritus University of Thrace
Center for Complex Systems Research
Australian National University Bioinformatics
Non-linear Science E-print archive with papers and conference announcements on chaos, adaptation, self-organization etc.
Complex Systems Links on the Web
Complexity, Complex Systems and Chaos: [at] Brint (Business & Technology Research)
resources relevant to the journal "Complexity"
Self-organizing systems Home page (mostly about cybernetic philosophy)
Self-Organizing Systems: a tutorial on the processes and patterns of organization and complexity in natural systems, by Ethan H. Decker
Complexity discussions from the point of view of constructivism and Robert Rosen's theories
Complex Systems research: an extensive list of links
Parameterized Complexity Home Page -- Todd Wareham, U Victoria
Complexity Home Page at Virginia Commonwealth University
[url=http://bayes.wustl.edu/]Bayesian Theory As Extended Logic -- Ed Jaynes
An Introduction to Synergetics
Chaos, Complexity, and Everything Else: a long list of links on chaos, complexity, artificial inteligence, genetic algorithms, and fractals
New England Complex Systems Institute, including the self-organizing, peer-reviewed Interjournal
Complex Adaptive Systems in Finance and strategy, by Mark White

Alife, Evolutionary Systems and Simulations

Artificial Life Online service with lots of info (news, bibliography, journals, ...)
The New Alife Database: Searchable Database of Alife-Related Sites Gathered by a Search Bot
T.S. Ray: An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology (paper on artificial life)
Evolutionary and Adaptive Systems research at the University of Sussex
Illinois Genetic Algorithms Lab
Interactive genetic art (evolves according to user preferences)
Genetically programmed music
FAQ's on Genetic Algorithms
[url=ftp://ftp.cognet.ucla.edu/pub/alife]Artificial Life[/url] ftp server
Karl Sims' Virtual Creatures: 3D, animated "life forms", developed through simulated evolution
Intelligent Systems: Brendan Kitts's reflections on life, AI, and their future developments, with many useful references
CWRU Autonomous Agents Research Group
MIT Media Lab Autonomous Agents Group, headed by Pattie Maes
Intelligent Software Agents
Web resources on Intelligent Software Agents
University of Vienna Dep. of Theoretical Biology, with research on systems theory of evolution, alife, constructivism, cognition and evolutionary epistemology
Boids , Flocks, Herds, and Schools: a Distributed Behavioral Model
The Swarm simulation system: a software system for complex system simulation devloped at SFI
Liverpool Biocomputation Group (Announcements)
Brian Keely's bibliography on Artificial Life
Boston University's Center for Adaptive Systems
Evolutionary Systems and Artificial Life: lecture notes by Luis Rocha
Bibliography of Alife publications: a very rich collection of online papers, maintained by Ezequiel Di Paolo, covering topics such as complexity, self-organization, evolution, social behavior, robotics, etc.
Biota.org: an organization stimulating the development of digital tools and environments for the study of living systems, with impressive visual and virtual reality examples of digital organisms
Nicholas Gessler's site on artificial culture and computational anthropology

---

We can also address:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo ... _synthesis

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... rFact.html

Support Evolution by Natural Selection (statements posted on respected websites):

Alabama Academy of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Commission on Science Education
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Physical Society
American Psychological Association
American Society for Microbology
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Society of Parasitologists
American Sociological Association
Association for Women Geoscientists
Association of Southeastern Biologists
Australian Academy of Science
Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
California Academy of Sciences
Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology and Computing
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education
Illinois Federation of Teachers
InterAcademy Panel
Iowa Academy of Science
Kansas Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences

National Association of Biology Teachers

New Mexico Academy of Sciences
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Pennsylvania Academy of Science
Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists
Philosophy of Science Association
Reaearch!America
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre
Royal Society
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Science
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society of Neuroscience
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society for Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertabrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Tallahassee Scientific Society
Tennessee Academy of Science
Tenessee Darwin Coalition
The Paleontological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science

American Society of Plant Taxonomists
American Statistical Association
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science
Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester (UK)
Science Museum of Minnesota
Union for Reform Judaism
Association of Science-Technology Centers
European Network of Science Centres and Museums (Ecsite)
International Committee for Museums and Collections of Natural History (NATHIST)
Australian Museum
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Museum of the Earth (Ithaca, New York)
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
New York State Museum

...and a recent updated, reaffirmation -

http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=92

NABT (National Association of Biology Teachers) Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

The frequently-quoted declaration of Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973) that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in the science of biology. As such, evolution provides the scientific framework that explains both the history of life and the continuing change in the populations of organisms in response to environmental challenges and other factors. Scientists who have carefully evaluated the evidence overwhelmingly support the conclusion that both the principle of evolution itself and its mechanisms best explain what has caused the variety of organisms alive now and in the past.

The principle of biological evolution states that all living things have arisen from common ancestors. Some lineages diverge while others go extinct as a result of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and other well-studied mechanisms. The patterns of similarity and diversity in extant and fossil organisms, combined with evidence and explanations provided by molecular biology, developmental biology, systematics, and geology provide extensive examples of and powerful support for evolution. Even as biologists continue to study and consider evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors and that the process of evolutionary change through time is driven by natural mechanisms.

Evolutionary biology rests on the same scientific methodologies the rest of science uses, appealing only to natural events and processes to describe and explain phenomena in the natural world. Science teachers must reject calls to account for the diversity of life or describe the mechanisms of evolution by invoking non-naturalistic or supernatural notions, whether called "creation science," "scientific creationism," "intelligent design theory," or similar designations. Ideas such as these are outside the scope of science and should not be presented as part of the science curriculum. These notions do not adhere to the shared scientific standards of evidence gathering and interpretation.

Just as nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, nothing in biology education makes sense without reference to and thorough coverage of the principle and mechanisms provided by the science of evolution. Therefore, teaching biology in an effective, detailed, and scientifically and pedagogically honest manner requires that evolution be a major theme throughout the life science curriculum both in classroom discussions and in laboratory investigations.

Biological evolution must be presented in the same way that it is understood within the scientific community: as a well-accepted principle that provides the foundation to understanding the natural world. Evolution should not be misrepresented as 'controversial,' or in need of 'critical analysis' or special attention for any supposed 'strength or weakness' any more than other scientific ideas are. Biology educators at all levels must work to encourage the development of and support for standards, curricula, textbooks, and other instructional frameworks that prominently include evolution and its mechanisms and that refrain from confusing non-scientific with scientific explanations in science instruction.

Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors, 2011. Revised 1997, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2011 (Original Statement 1995). Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution, 1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998.

Evolution Theory in modern medicine:

There is literally a boat load of evolutionary science in medicine.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... -medicine/
http://evmedreview.com/
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.htmlv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicinev

Evolutionary medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. It provides a complementary scientific approach to the present mechanistic explanations that dominate [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_science]medical science, and particularly modern medical education. Researchers in the field of evolutionary medicine have suggested that evolutionary biology should not simply be an optional topic in medical school, but instead should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences.

Such adaptations concern:

The evolution of pathogens in terms of their virulence, resistance to antibiotics, and subversion of an individual’s immune system.
The processes, constraints and trade-offs of human evolution.
The evolved responses that enable individuals to protect, heal and recuperate themselves from infections and injuries such as immunity, fever, and sickness behavior, and the processes that regulate their deployment to maximize fitness.
How past adaptation of early humans to their ancestral environment now affects contemporary humans with their different diet, life expectancy, degree of physical exercise, and hygiene.

We also have this:

Antibiotic resistance

Microorganisms evolve resistance through natural selection acting upon random mutation. Once a gene conferring resistance arises to counteract an antibiotic, not only can that bacteria thrive, but it can spread that gene to other types of bacteria through horizontal gene transfer of genetic information by plasmid exchange. It is unclear whether the genetic information responsible for antibiotic resistance typically arises from an actual mutation, or is already present in the gene pool of the population of the organism in question.

For more details on this topic, see antibiotic resistance

Virulence

The effect of organisms upon their host can vary from being symbioticcommensals that are beneficial, to pathogens that reduce fitness. Many pathogens produce virulence factors that directly cause disease, or manipulate their host to allow them to thrive and spread. Since a pathogen’s fitness is determined by its success in transmitting offspring to other hosts, it was thought at one time, that virulence moderated and it evolved toward commensality. However, this view is now questioned by Ewald.

For more details on this topic, see virulence, virulence factors and optimal virulence

Immune evasion

The success of any pathogen depends upon its ability to evade host immunity. Therefore, pathogens evolve methods that enable them to infect a host, and then evade detection and destruction by its immune system. These include hiding within host cells, within a protective capsule (as with M. tuberculosis), secreting compounds that misdirect the host's immune response, binding its antibodies, rapidly changing surface markers, or masking them with the host’s own molecules.

For more details on this topic, see manipulation of the immune system by pathogens, andevasion of the innate immune system

OBSERVED EVOLUTION:

Evolution has been observed. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - June 2008

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 211022.htm

ScienceDaily (July 11, 2011) — Lungless salamanders (Ensatina eschscholtzii) live in a horseshoe-shape region in California (a 'ring') which circles around the central valley. The species is an example of evolution in action because, while neighboring populations may be able to breed, the two populations at the ends of the arms of the horseshoe are effectively unable to reproduce.

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.t ... Whales.pdf

"...evolutionary biology predicts more than just the existence of fossil ancestors with certain characteristics - it also predicts that all other biological disciplines should also reveals patterns of similarity among whales, their ancestors, and other mammals correlated with evolutionary relatedness between groups. It should be no surprise that this is what we find, and since the findings in one biological discipline, say biochemistry, is derived without reference to the findings in another, say comparative anatomy, scientists consider these different fields to provide independent evidence of the evolution of whales. As expected, these independent lines of evidence all confirm the pattern of whale evolution that we would anticipate in the fossil record."

Thus we suggest paying special attention to the sections of the paper devoted to embryological stages and vestigial traits:

It makes no sense, for example, for some modern cetaceans to have useless, atrophied skeletal structures, such as pelvises and tiny hind-limbs, unless they evolved from animals that needed these structures to walk on land.

The fact that modern whales have genes which cause them to grow fur during the course of their embryological development, only to have it disappear before birth, also points to the fact that their ancestors were furred mammals.

The evolution of whales

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

HOW CREATIONISTS DEBATE EVOLUTION:

And the following, provided by JackOL, is the type of argument Creationists use in debates such as these:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolut ... ctive.html

Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.

This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwin’s time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses.

Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old. Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.

EXAMPLE:

Theist states:

As for the Bacteria, its still bacteria, its changes , regardless of lateral mutation, loss, or any type of supposed gain, its still bacteria. Its not turning into a fish, or a human.

Well, evolution does not state that bacteria will magically change into a human or fish.. However, it does state that it could evolve into more complex organisms should evolution select for it. And this of course would be time scales you know would be in the millions of years. So of course we are not going to witness bacteria instantly changing into a fish. But a guarantee that you will never witness a walking fish magically appear on your desk either! However, let's educate ourselves on Bacteria:

Protozoa (from the Greek words π�ωτό, proto, meaning first, and ζωα, zoa, meaning animals; singular protozoon or also protozoan) are a diverse group of single-cell eukaryotic organisms, many of which are motile. Throughout history, protozoa have been defined as single-cell protists with animal-like behavior, e.g., movement. Protozoa were regarded as the partner group of protists to protophyta, which have plant-like behaviour, e.g., photosynthesis.

Protistans are eukaryotes. They have a nucleus, large ribosomes, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and golgi bodies. Many species have chloroplasts. Some protists divide by way of mitosis, meiosis, or both. The majority of protistians are single-celled, but nearly every lineage also has multicelled forms. Protists are important for the use of food. Saprobes resemble some bacteria and fungi, and some predators and parasites resembles animals. Some are heterotrophs and some are autotrophs. Chytrids, water molds, slime molds, protozans, and sporozans are heterotrophs.

These evolved from bacteria.. But let's get a better picture:

Eubacteria and Archaebacteria: the oldest forms of life

http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolu ... -life.html

Written by Dr. T. M. Wassenaar Tuesday, 06 January 2009

Bacteria have an extremely important place in the evolution of life. Our knowledge of bacteria helps us understand, observe, and investigate evolution. This exhibits explains what we know about the origin of life on Earth and the role bacteria played and still play in this. As described in this Lecture on the Origin of Life all life originated from a common ancestor (Source: UTDallas). Our other exhibit explains how we can observe mutations in bacteria directly.

Archaeabacteria are a diverse group of bacteria (prokaryotes that do not have a nucleus) and are considered a major group unto themselves. This group is called the Archaea (from Greek, 'old') for short and to distinguish them from the other prokaryotes, all other bacteria are then called Eubacteria.

What are Archaea? They are more similar to eukaryotes than to bacteria in several ways: their cell-wall does not contain peptidoglycan (a component of each bacterial cell). There are other characteristics that Archaea share with eukaryotes, however they do not have a nucleus (which all Eukaryotes have). They form a group by themselves.

The Kingdom Monera is the taxonomic kingdom that comprises all prokaryotes: Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. Monera has been contrasted with the kingdoms of eukaryotic organisms (protists, fungi, plants, and animals).Archaebacteria emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago and are the oldest life forms.There are several theories about the exact phylogenetic relationship (what was derived from what) between archaea, eukaryotes, and eubacteria, as can be seen in two versions of the Tree-of-Life. New insights dictate that eubacteria and archaebacteria diverged from one another near the time of the origin of life, and that eukaryotes were derived from eubacteria.

Let's ignore the details. Important is that bacteria (Eu and Archae) have been on earth much longer than eukaryotes; they are probably the oldest forms of life and have populated Earth for most of the time our planet exists. Going back in evolutionary history, the Archaea evolved some 3500 million years ago. Fossiles are mostly not quite as old as that, but occasionally we do find bacterial fossiles. Compare that to the age of the first eukaryotes, 1800 million years ago, or the first animals, 600 million years. Earth is truly the planet of bacteria in this respect!

Look at a cut-up prokaryote to see what is inside
Do you believe the scenario of "Jurassic Park" could come true? Maybe we can't generate dynosaures, but what about bacteria from "jurassic park".

The first inhabitants of Earth did not need oxygen to breath, in fact oxygen was toxic to them, and this gas was rare in the atmosphere in those days. However the cyanobacteria that inhabited Earth in the Precambrium produced oxygen as a waste gas and so helped establish an aerobic ecosystem. Read more about Cyanobacteria. They grew in shallow sea water where they formed mats, and used incoming sunlight for photosynthesis. When such a bacterial mat was covered by mud or sand, light could no longer penetrate and the organisms died. A new mat could form on top of this, and the fossilized buildup of millions of layers resulted in the formation of Stromatolites, which can be seen to this day.

There are three major known groups within the Archaebacteria: methanogens, halophiles, and thermophiles. The methanogens are anaerobic bacteria that produce methane. They are found in sewage treatment plants, bogs, and the intestinal tracts of ruminants. Ancient methanogens are the source of natural gas. Halophiles are bacteria that thrive in high salt concentrations such as those found in salt lakes or pools of sea water. Thermophiles are the heat-loving bacteria found near hydrothermal vents and hot springs. You can read more about these Extremophiles in another exhibit.

This lecture on Diversity of bacteria and archaeans explains the differences in more detail--and in more jargon.

The presence of Archaea and Bacteria changed Earth dramatically. They helped establish a stable atmosphere, and produced oxygen is such quantities that eventually life forms could evolve that needed oxygen in stead of producing it. The new atmospheric conditions calmed the weather so that the extremes were less severe. Life had created the conditions for new life to be formed. It is one of the great wonders of Nature that this could take place.

Last Updated on Friday, 06 March 2009

Now let's go back to this Theist argument:

Once again regardless of what tests are done, it is still basing it off of assumptions.

Incorrect. It's not based on purely assumption like Your GOD THEORY that has zero empirical value or evidence... NASA's research, fore example, has a lot to do with empirically supported data to which includes extremophiles, and even thermophiles. This also includes studies involving arsenic based life forms. I even wrote an article posted an article on possible self-replicating metals:

Scientists take first step towards creating 'inorganic life'

We can also look more into synthetic life:

Synthetic' chromosome permits rapid, on-demand 'evolution' of yeast; Artificial system has built-in diversity generator

... Last Word...

I have posted just a mere fraction of what I could have posted, and I took the time to sit here and convert links and format this information for your own consumption and education.. Though I doubt creationists will bother to actually read the material. If anyone would like me to, I can post a boat load more material here.. Including information theory / science that deals with biochemistry and evolutionary processes. And what Creationsists don't comprehend is that these same processes that are involved in evolution are also --->REQUIRED<--- to support the complexity and basic functionality of cognitive dynamics and a conscious state. More specifically noted under complex adaptive systems with feebdack that deal with information flow, processes, cognitive system dynamics, interactions, interference, and reactionary response systems. Hugely important in bio-chemistry!

Have an nice day and remember:

Nothing begins with consciousness. Everything begins and ends with information: Information: The Material Physical Cause Of Causation

[BeRad]

Hi everyone, as this is a huge topic that has been going for 26 pages now I am hoping that I am not repeating something already said.

I have just a few points I would like to offer that may help.

1) I believe that science should always be observation based.
as far as I am aware macro-evolution has never been observed, yes we have seen species specialize into various sub-species but we have never observed a bird specialize until it is no longer a bird but a fish or mammal. Therefor evolution is a theory. (as is creation because we haven't observed that either)

2) Macro-evolution would require a increase in complexity in the DNA of the life-form, however all observed mutation involves a loss of complexity.

3) the time requirements for macro-evolution are astronomical. We observe micro-evolution and use that as a model to explain the origin of all life and we end up with billions of years for this to have possibly occurred. Unfortunately, if we apply the same logic to the erosion of the earths landmass it would have eroded down to sea level and still had millions of years until today.

needless to say, I don't accept the evolutionary theory. However, I do love to discuss this topic so long as it is constructive.

that all I'll say for now, thanks for hearing me out

[Goat]

Hi everyone, as this is a huge topic that has been going for 26 pages now I am hoping that I am not repeating something already said.

I have just a few points I would like to offer that may help.

1) I believe that science should always be observation based.
as far as I am aware macro-evolution has never been observed, yes we have seen species specialize into various sub-species but we have never observed a bird specialize until it is no longer a bird but a fish or mammal. Therefor evolution is a theory. (as is creation because we haven't observed that either)

Why, macro evolution has been observed. A bird or plant going into another specices IS macro-evolution. It seems that your definition of macro-evolution is not what anybody elses is. Also, you are misrepresenting what the TOE is. If a species turned into another order or family that quickly, that would be a real big dent to the TOE as it stands now. As for evolution being a theory.. why, yes, it IS a theory.. The theory is WHY there is a change over time. It is also a fact, because we have strong evidence based in fossils and in DNA that species do change over time. .. and that some species go extinct.. but other species arise.

2) Macro-evolution would require a increase in complexity in the DNA of the life-form, however all observed mutation involves a loss of complexity.

This is wrong on two accounts. You do not need 'an increase in complexity of the dna' to form another species. And, you are incorrect. We have mutations that do increase complexity. So , that statement is wrong on two levels.

3) the time requirements for macro-evolution are astronomical. We observe micro-evolution and use that as a model to explain the origin of all life and we end up with billions of years for this to have possibly occurred. Unfortunately, if we apply the same logic to the erosion of the earths landmass it would have eroded down to sea level and still had millions of years until today.

Care to provide a source for this claim? Let's see who made the claim, and how they backed this claim up. Do you have peer reviewed scientific journals for this.
Also, while there is erosion of the earths surface, we also have land building, in the form of plate tectonics, earth rising when the weight is lifted off it top of the plate, and volcanic activity to counter that effect. You seem to think that it is either eroding or not eroding.. you aren't taking into account other forces at work within the earth.

needless to say, I don't accept the evolutionary theory. However, I do love to discuss this topic so long as it is constructive.

that all I'll say for now, thanks for hearing me out

From the comments you made, you were not addressing what the TOE actually is, the pictures you painted of both evolution and geology are highly inaccurate, and filled with a lot of misinformation. It might be a good idea to get some basic books written for the layman about the TOE, so you can at least address what the TOE actually says, rather than a big distortion of what it says.

[TheJackelantern]

BeRad

I suggest you go back several pages, and visit the other evolution thread and take the time to fully read them before posting.. There is no need to play a circle game here. Cheers mate...

[TheJackelantern]

wrong place for post

[Critical_Thinker]

vvvv Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 post vvvv

Hi TheJackelantern.

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm

TheJackelantern wrote on 1/14/2012:
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

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
I read the article above entitled “Evolution Revolution: Two Species Become One, Study Says.� I have no problem with species developing new traits that would consider a creature a new and different species. I would just like to add that just because two animals have similar genetic make-up does not necessarily indicate that they possess common ancestors. This is the argument of common ancestor (evolutionist view) or common function (creationist view). The article you suggested above discusses some flies that produce offspring have possessed different characteristics than their immediate ancestors. 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.�

Would you agree with this definition of species?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The question I have regarding this “new species� described in the article is whether it is able to interbreed with the immediate ancestors or not. If it can, then according to the scientific definition of species, then this new variety of insects, even though they possess some different characteristics, cannot technically be considered a new species, since the new creatures are still able to interbreed with the immediate ancestors and produce offspring. The real question for me is whether these small changes (micro-evolution) in the descendents of a creature will eventually lead to a different creature that does not resemble the ancestors at all (macro-evolution). The question that you dislike is whether a fly could ever produce subsequent descendents that would not be recognized as flies, but some other insect. This would be an example of macro-evolution (small changes that would eventually lead to major changes.) So far, you (or any other naturalist) have not sufficiently demonstrated that this has ever occurred. So my view still holds. Small changes (micro-evolution) do not automatically indicate that over great periods of time and generations that major changes would occur (macro-evolution). For evolutionists to make the claim that small changes (micro-evolution) could lead to major changes (macro-evolution) is still an unproven assumption.

=====================================================
TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm
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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
When I mentioned body type, I was referring to different types of creatures. For example, a fish possesses different characteristics than an amphibian. A reptile possesses different characteristics than a mammal. In your illustration, even though horses have four legs, just as dogs do, I would not consider them to be the same species. They possess different characteristics and they do not interbreed. When I referred to “body types,� I was referring to flies in comparison to other insects, such as a spider. Flies do not have the same body type as a spider or a bee, even though they all possess a head, six legs. Flies and bees have wings but spiders do not. Flies are flies, bees are bees, and spiders are spiders. I know of no insect (living or extinct) that has an appearance of developing (through subsequent generations) a different appearance that would indicate it is in the process of developing into a different insect completely. Flies are flies, bees are bees, and spiders are spiders. Just because a descendent of a fly develops characteristics somewhat different than its ancestors, does not prove that eventually macro-evolution has ever occurred. We both agree that minor changes occur in creatures (micro-evolution). To prove macro-evolution, you would have to demonstrate conclusively that a succession of any creature (such as a fly) gradually (understandably though subsequent generations and not from a single generation – evolution is basically a slow, gradual process) developed sufficient traits that it would no longer even look like its ancestor (such as a fly) or could be identified as the same creature (such as a fly). Do you now understand the point I am trying to make even though you disagree?

=====================================================
TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm
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

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm
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
http://www.contentparadise.com/productD ... x?id=18601

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
As I mentioned previously, I have no problem with the series that demonstrates horse evolution. A horse may have previously looked like a deer. I would consider horses and deer to be similar creatures that could possibly be from a common ancestor. That does not mean conclusively to me, however, that an amphibian became a reptile or that a reptile became a mammal. Different kinds of creatures possess a great deal of genetic information. Natural selection can eliminate certain pre-existing genetic information, by eliminating creatures not suited to a particular environment. Thus, many different varieties can be produced in different environments. Much of this genetic information may have been hidden in the ancestor that may be expressed (turned on) in subsequent descendents. (That is, the features coded for could be expressed in the offspring.) Scientists have also found that genetic information also had other 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, which are still changes involving already created information, not generation of new information. Note that these changes only occur within a kind. This would be an example of microevolution.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Applying these concepts to the horse, the genetic information coding for extra toes is present, but is switched off in most modern horses. Sometimes a horse is born where the genes are switched on, and many horse fossils indicate that the genes had been switched on. This would explain, for example, why there are no transitional forms showing gradually smaller toe size. It is possible that body size and tooth shape were also 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. This would explain the alleged horse evolutionary series as variation within the equine (horse) kind. The amount of variety within living horses, undoubtedly one kind, supports this.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The evidence of horse fossils indicates that the horse lineage definitely had biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists believe this indicates Darwinian evolution. Creation scientists, however, say that the evidence simply indicates changes within the horse basic type (micro-evolution) and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Since you are so good at detective work and discovering my sources, I will not include it here. Actually, you should not need to determine or consider the source, but whether the information is accurate, factual, or possible or not. The main reason why I no longer include my sources is so that you would concentrate on the information rather than where the information originated. But you are more interested in the source than what is contained in the source. Is this because you are unable to refute what is written, therefore you attack the source? I realize that anyone can make a claim and that it is more difficult to provide evidence for the claims, but you belittle every idea that does not support your views. You claim that you do not have the time nor desire to provide evidence that refutes every claim made by creationists. I would think that you would indeed be able to provide convincing evidence to refute all creationist claims, since it seems to be a major area of expertise for you.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Regarding the source of my information, you refuse to recognize it as valid science because it has not been peer reviewed by scientists who accept the theory of evolution. In reality, you provide a great deal of information that has not been peer reviewed either. So the argument goes both ways. I could also demand that you only provide peer reviewed information as well.
=====================================================

In response to my (Critical_Thinker) comment:
such as comparing chimpanzee chromosomes with human chromosomes?

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Most modern evolutionary biologists do not claim that humans evolved from chimpanzees or any other living apes, but that humans and the great apes all evolved separately from one now extinct common ancestor through independent evolutionary lines. Evolutionary biologists claim that one common ancestor of man and the hominids possessed a diploid (having two similar complements of chromosomes) number of 48. As this species evolved into the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, the total chromosomal number remained constant at 48. In contrast, as the same common ancestor evolved into a human, two of the 48 chromosomes underwent a genetic malfunction and were fused together to produce a new species with a diploid number of 46.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
This view, however, is debatable. First, this hypothesis assumes that the chromosomal fusion took place after humans supposedly split from the apes in the proposed evolutionary tree. Evolutionary biologists claim that at some point in the past, a human ancestor’s DNA underwent a genetic fusion between two of its chromosomes. It must be pointed out, that as currently known, this event did not occur in any other species. The arguments proposed by evolutionary biologists do not provide any evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes. Their line of thinking provides no empirical evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. All that it really does is suggest that a past human may have undergone this genetic change. In order for this fusion event to demonstrate common ancestry with the chimpanzee, there would have to be some link between the fusion event and the great apes.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
To date, there is no such link known. The fused-looking chromosome is specific to humans, so it does not directly make any connection with the great apes. Therefore, it cannot be empirical evidence for a common link between Homo sapiens and the great ape. The only genetic supposed link between humans and the great apes is our close DNA sequence similarity. This similarity is expected since humans have a similar body structure physiology, and biochemistry that we share with apes (common function). If humans did not descend from apes, it is possible that humans were initially created with 48 chromosomes, but at some point they underwent the fusion that is currently seen in humans. This could be viewed as micro-evolution having taken place.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The chromosome structure changed, but no new species developed as a result of the fusion. Biologists have determined that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence that are not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Let us assume that evolutionists are correct and a distant human ancestor with 48 chromosomes did evolve into a new species with 46 chromosomes via the chromosome 2 fusion event. Did this event occur in a single individual or simultaneously in an entire population? Mutations of this nature are certainly rare, but they do occur occasionally. However, the probability that this mutation would occur simultaneously in multiple individuals is so staggeringly low that we can assume its impossibility. At best, the mutation occurred in a single individual. How then was it propagated from one individual to his or her offspring and eventually to every human? Chromosomal rearrangements of this nature are not easily passed to offspring. When mutations of this magnitude occur, they pose serious problems for an organism when the process of gamete production occurs.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Gametes are the egg and sperm cells used to form a new individual during sexual reproduction. The process of generating gametes is a special form of cell division known as meiosis. During this process, a specific alignment of chromosomal pairs always occurs and is essential for meiosis. This alignment is dependent on the near-identical structure and sequence of chromosomal pairs. If an individual carries a mutation such as a chromosomal fusion, then he or she will often be unable to produce gametes, because meiosis will fail to occur properly due to improper alignment of the now non-identical chromosome pairs. Today, we know chromosomal fusion to be one cause of infertility. In some cases, meiosis can find a way to complete despite non-identical chromosomal pairs. However, the gametes that result, or the offspring produced by fertilization with these gametes, usually have a short lifespan due to genetic problems. Problems associated with chromosomal alignment lead to spontaneous miscarriages and genetic abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome. Unfortunately, this explanation is no better than that of the evolutionist’s common ancestry theory.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
As described above, the problems of infertility, low survival fitness, and the absence of humans with 48 chromosomes today make this explanation improbable for the appearance of chromosome 2. It could be argued that [the first 2 humans] contained the chromosome 2 fusion and thus repopulated the Earth following the great Flood with this genomic alteration. If [the first two humans] contained a fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B, then their offspring would have a 50% chance of receiving this chromosome. Then, offspring from their sons would have only a 25% chance of receiving the altered chromosome 2. With each successive generation, the probability of maintaining the altered chromosome would reduce by one-half. At this point, no one can adequately explain how this fusion may have occurred.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
I will save you the trouble and give you the references for the sources of this information. You are free to criticize it all you want. But the fact remains, there is no conclusive explanation as to how the fused chromosomes could have occurred and passed on to the descendents.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... rticle=801
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee ... usion_site

====================================================
TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
Or you can visit :
http://www.genome.gov/10001691
http://www.genome.gov/11509542

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Chromosome sequencing is interesting, but is not conclusive in determining or demonstrating the relation of creatures. For example, Humans have more DNA similarities with other mammals like a pig than with reptiles like a rattlesnake. So the general pattern of similarities does not need to be explained by common-ancestry evolution. There are some puzzling inconsistencies that cause doubts about an evolutionary explanation. There are similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. The α-hemoglobin of crocodiles has more in common with that of chickens (17.5 percent) than that of vipers (5.6 percent), their fellow reptiles. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but a common ancestor of sharks and camels cannot explain this.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
A particular kind of protein that is found in a great variety of species will differ slightly or not so slightly in its amino acid sequences from species to species. The difference can be determined by aligning the sequences and counting the number of positions at which the amino acids differ. For example, if there are a total of 100 positions and the number of amino acids is the same at 80 of the 100, the difference would be 20, or 20% different. The validity of such comparisons is controversial. Not all molecules have the same pattern of relationships, and in some cases molecular classifications differ from traditional classifications. There does not appear to be any clear relationship in the degree of molecular difference between two species and any difference in tangible characteristics. For example, all frog species look similar, but 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.
=====================================================

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
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

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
I realize that a possible scenario has been developed to explain how a reptile could have evolved into a mammal without losing either hearing or chewing functions, but whether it actually occurred is debatable. I agree there are reptiles, mammal-like reptiles, and mammals, however, I do not believe that by looking at fossils that one could conclusively demonstrate that a mammal-like reptile evolved into a mammal for several reasons.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
There is little evidence to support the view that mammals evolved from reptiles. Not only is there a lack of intermediate fossils, but also 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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Mammals exhibit a number of unique features which are not found in any other group of organisms. They include:
1) a hairy covering, each hair being a complex structure consisting of keratinized cuticle, a cortex and a central medulla
2) mammary glands exhibiting alveoli surrounded by a network of myoepithelial cells responsive to the hormone oxytocin producing milk, a nutritious secretion containing fat globules and sugars
3) specialized sweat glands in the skin
4) a four-chambered heart with left ventricle delivering aerated blood to the aorta
5) unique kidney shaped kidneys with a urinary tract filtering unit that removes waste matter from the blood and function to generate urine
6) a large cerebral cortex with distinctive six layers of cells. The cerebral cortex is a complex outgrowth of neural tissue which forms the outer layer of the brain, which is the seat of all the higher mental functions and complex behavior patterns that is characteristic of mammals
7) a diaphragm, a special muscle used by mammals for respiration
8) three highly specialized ear ossicles consisting of a mallus, incus and stapes conducting vibrations across the middle ear
9) the organ of corti, a specialized organ for reception and analysis of sound

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Each of the 9 characteristics listed above are unique to only mammals and essentially are in the same form. 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. 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 result in the death of the transitional animal forms.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The problems associated with the process of reptiles evolving into mammals are vastly greater than merely imagining how two bones precisely shaped to perform in a powerfully effective jaw-joint of a reptilian jaw could detach themselves, then make their way into the middle ear of a mammal, reshape themselves into the malleus and incus in a mammalian ear. These bones then need to be re-shaped precisely engineered to function with a remodeled stapes in a vastly different auditory apparatus, while at the same time the creature continued to chew and to hear.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
There are also other factors that need to be considered in the supposed transition of the reptilian jaw to a mammalian jaw. The possibility of this actually occurring seems to be rather remote when we consider the fact that the essential organ of hearing in the mammal, called the organ of Corti, is not possessed by a single reptile. Nor is there any evidence that would provide even a hint of where this organ came from. The organ of Corti is an extremely complicated organ. It is not found in reptiles. There is no possible structure in the reptile from which it could have been derived. According to evolutionary theory, all evolutionary changes occur as the result of mistakes during the reproduction of genes. These mistakes are called mutations, and each change brought about by such mutations which survived must be superior to preceding forms. If evolution is true, one must believe that a series of thousands and thousands of mistakes in a coordinated fashion gradually caused the organ of Corti to function in an ear. And at the same time had to be reengineered accordingly while dragging in two bones from the jaw and redesigning them. Furthermore, each intermediate stage not only had to be fully functional but actually must have been superior to the preceding stage.

=====================================================

I (Critical_Thinker) wrote:
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.

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
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

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Do you disagree with every point made in the information that I presented above? If you agree with some of it, which parts do you actually disagree with? Do you know of any scientific proof that the above information I cited is conclusively false? It appears that since you cannot refute the argument, you attack the author. I admit that anyone can make idle claims that may or may not be refutable, however, I see a pattern of you belittling any claims that are made that goes against evolutionary theory. If you do not have a valid source that refutes the argument, why don’t you just state that to the best of your knowledge you doubt that the information is true and that you are not aware of any information that substantiates or refutes the claim and leave it at that, rather than simply attack the author?
=====================================================

To my (Critical_Thinker) comment:
That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature.

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
Yes, and gene duplication can occur to, or other means in which new traits and be introduced. You are delusional if you think this only happens in cases of recessive genes turning on or off...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4703000338
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /119.short

=====================================================

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
Do you have a peer reviewed scientific paper to prove that argument?

Natural selection can eliminate certain pre-existing genetic information, by eliminating creatures not suited to a particular environment. Thus, many different varieties can be produced in different environments.
Trying to copy paste what science says into a creationist assertion of creation is dishonest and quote mining science out of context to form a creationist argument that has no factual or evidential basis.

To my (Critical_Thinker) comment:
Also, much of this genetic information may have been hidden in the original created kinds. (That is, the features coded for are not expressed in the offspring.)
TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
Is that why people can have fully functional tails? Nice fail!.. GOD just plants evidence to make it look like evolution!.. / sarcasm.. And please provide me with a peer reviewed paper on this subject..

To my (Critical_Thinker) comment:
Scientists have also found that genetic information also had other controlling or regulatory genes that switch other genes ‘on’ or ‘off.’
TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
That's not evidence for creationism son.. Avatism is not your friend here.

To my (Critical_Thinker) comment:
That is, they control whether or not the information in a gene will be decoded, so the trait will be expressed in the creature.

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
Yes, and gene duplication can occur to, or other means in which new traits and be introduced. You are delusional if you think this only happens in cases of recessive genes turning on or off...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4703000338
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /119.short

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
What does ‘avatism’ mean? I could not find it in any dictionary. Are you referring to ‘atavism’ which means: 1) the reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations. 2) an individual embodying such a reversion. 3) reversion to an earlier type; throwback. If so, what do you mean by “atavism is not your friend here�? Would you please explain?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
I am aware there are more ways for changes to occur in creatures than mutations and genes being turned on or off. I too, am aware of other mechanisms as well, such as exon shuffling (domain shuffling), gene duplication (which you already mentioned), retroposition, mobile genetic elements (transposable elements), lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, de novo gene origination. The question is, what types of changes could these types of gene changes actually cause?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Biologists discovered multiple mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. Gene duplication represents an increase in the amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information. These mechanisms create nothing new. For macroevolution to occur, new genes (for developing feathers on reptiles, for example) are needed. In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type. This is called “polyploidy.� Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the reproductive isolation, no new information has been produced, only repetitious doubling of existing information. Duplication of a single chromosome is normally harmful, as in Down’s syndrome. Insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes. These mutational changes are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved a loss of information, rather than an increase in information, as evolutionists claim. The evolutionist’s “gene duplication idea� is that no existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed. Therefore, it is free to mutate free of selection pressure, that is, it will have the possibility of survival. However, such “neutral� mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information.

=====================================================

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
And I see you copied pasted from this book to which doesn't post any peer review material, or even seem to do anything other than quote mine science out of context and try to mold it into a creationist talking point from pure and utter ignorance: Evolution or Creation? A Comparison of the Evidence (Second Edition)

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
You continually use the term “mining� in your responses. It appears that since you are not able to refute the claims being made by creationists, you accuse creationists and me of mine quoting, that is, “quoting mining science out of context to form a creationist argument that has no factual or evidential basis� (your words). Do you believe that I am taking material out of context in my posts? If so, what am I leaving out? Exactly how do you propose an argument should be presented? Would you prefer we only exchange web links, documents, journals, etc. From some of your previous posts your references did not always address my comments or questions. By the way, I believe the book, (correct title) “Evolution or Creation? A Comparison of the Arguments (Second Edition) is a good resource book that utilizes both evolutionist and creationist material fairly. Are you claiming that the author of the book has taken information out of context (mine quoting) or are you claiming that creationists in general take evolutionary information out of context?

Critical_thinker 2/26/2012 post continued:
I believe the book you mentioned above, “Evolution or Creation? A Comparison of the Arguments (Second Edition)� was well researched and does not try to hide any evidence. I believe the author attempted to present the arguments from both sides of the issue without any particular bias. If you disagree, which portions of the book do you feel are taken out of context? Have you read the book? If not, don’t make such idle claims without first doing the research. If anything, it is evolutionists who ignore certain aspects to prove their point. It is true that not every topic includes peer-reviewed sources. The book is more about evolutionists and creationists arguments than journal articles. If only peer-reviewed journal were used in this book, there would be no creationist views, as scientists who control the peer-review process would not review any literature if it came from a creationist. Creationists are not considered scientific by evolutionists, although contrary to what evolutionists claim, creationists also conduct experiments. They do not simply criticize experiments and conclusions reached by evolutionists.
I have already addressed many of the creationist arguments that you have not adequately responded to, even though you make the claim:

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
I responded to pretty much the very bulk of your main arguments.. Especially when considering your main arguments from from discredited sources, and demonstrated as such. I don't even need bother going any further in this debate.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Just because a source has not bee peer reviewed or that you do not agree with it does not mean that the source has been discredited. It may have been discredited by you, however, it has not been proven sufficiently to be false. The problem is that since no one was around to witness what occurred in the past, it is open to debate as to what actually occurred. The evidence is circumstantial, as you admit:

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Circumstantial evidence has been defined as: “evidence which is offered to prove certain attendant circumstances from which the existence of the fact at issue may be inferred; indirect evidence.� Webster’s Dictionary

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Circumstantial evidence is usually debatable. For example, if someone sees someone standing over someone else who has been shot and the person standing over the dead body is holding a gun, what would most people assume? The problem with assumptions is that sometimes they are later proven wrong. One should not develop conclusions based solely on circumstantial evidence or assumptions.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Are you referring to eye-witness accounts such as one witnessing a traffic accident or a murder? I agree that eye-witness sometimes prove to be unreliable are they are not able to recall everything exactly how it might have occurred, thus providing conflicting accounts of what occurred. Some aspect might not have been noticed or overlooked, such as which direction a different car was traveling or that the person who was murdered first pulled out a knife or a gun. Regarding evolution, since no one was around during the time when evolution of bacteria to worms to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and birds was presumed to have taken place, nor was anyone around to document what they witnessed for future generations, all that is available is the evidence that is open to interpretation. Hence, the evolution – creation debate.

=====================================================


Origins of life

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
Look up the periodic table.. That might be your first big clue.
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.
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.

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.

vvv Critical_Thinker’s 1/17/2012 response vvv:
TheJackelantern, I am not pretending anything. Evolution is a change in a species. Abiogenesis is the concept of how life could have originated by natural means. Yes, I did ready the articles on prions, however, I was not able to understand how prions relate to how life may have originated on this planet. So, please explain how prions are related to theories regarding the origins of life. The bottom line is that to date there exists no plausible theory that conclusively demonstrates how life could have begun on this planet.
^^^ end Critical_Thinker 1/17/2012 ^^^^

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.

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.

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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
I appreciate your honesty here, TheJackelantern. You are correct in what you said in the paragraph above regarding amino acids and the correct arrangement of adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T) in DNA or (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and uracil (U) in RNA. Don’t forget the problems with “handedness� (enantiomer, chirality) when discussing that amino acids and DNA only use the left-handed form, whereas proteins only use the right-handed form. The problem is that a random chance process would result in both left-handed and right-handed forms. For example, 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.

TheJackelantern, do you agree with the above statement or do I need to cite a source?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Other problems with life originating by natural processes:

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Water—One of the early ideas in organic evolution was the “primordial soup.� According to this view, at some point in Earth’s history, the molten Earth cooled and oceans formed. The theory states as rain fell, 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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
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. 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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H (hydrogen) and OH (oxygen and hydrogen) to form H2O (water) (A water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. There would somehow need to be a steady input of appropriate energy. Destructive raw energy would not work. There would somehow also need to be a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than useless material. 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.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
If the amino acids would fall into the ocean after being formed, the concentration would dilute the formation of proteins, which would affect the composition of the amino acids. Since the formation of proteins from amino acids results in the elimination of water, then carrying out the reaction in the ocean (or small pond) or wherever water is in large excess, would be quite detrimental to the formation of proteins. This is because the reaction of amino acids to form proteins is a reversible reaction eliminating water and therefore, by the law of mass action, would be expected to reverse itself in the presence of a large amount of water.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Temperature - 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. http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Oxygen—Evolutionists claim that life began in an oxygen-free atmosphere in order to explain why organic compounds such as amino acids, proteins, amine bases, etc. were not destroyed by oxidation over the long period of time necessary for life to begin. If this were true, then the same organic compounds would have been destroyed by ultraviolet radiation from the sun because without oxygen, there would not have been a protective ozone layer to protect them.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the Earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere, evolutionists will continue to claim that there was no oxygen in the Earth’s early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. Because oxygen in the atmosphere would destroy all possibility of life arising by natural processes, evolutionists wrongly assumed the atmosphere had no oxygen.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Scientists assumed the atmosphere contained certain necessary ingredients, including (1) ammonia, (2) nitrogen, (3) hydrogen, (4) water vapor and (5) methane. However, it is well known that mixing these ingredients does not create life. Therefore, evolutionists theorized something else must be needed, such as a bolt of energy. The presence of oxygen would tend to destroy the organic compounds needed for life, but if oxygen were absent, the atmosphere would lack an ozone layer to shield the compounds from ultraviolet rays. Either way, oxygen would be a problem for evolution. If there were no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the Earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen (O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Therefore, if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the Earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, for life to have developed on its own, oxygen is a problem. In the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen there would be no ozone and life could not evolve or exist.

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
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

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
I checked out the two web sites you suggested above. Neither even hints of how life (eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells) could have originated. It is one thing to make the claim that research is being conducted and quite another thing to illustrate how a living cell could have originated form inorganic matter (chemicals).

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
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?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
I read and/or viewed the web sites you suggested, even the ones illustrating what occurs when one experiences 9Gs. I see that since you are unable to even remotely describe how a cell could have originated, you refer to the intimidation tactic and focus instead on non-living matter without even attempting to explain how life could have originated from non-living matter. Exactly how does an electromagnetic phenomenon demonstrate how a living cell could have originated? I realize that some chemicals have natural attraction to other chemicals, however, I have not yet read any plausible scenarios or hypotheses about how the cell or DNA or RNA in living creatures could have developed by natural means.

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
The theory of evolution has more problems than the “red herring� regarding the origin of life. It is true that the theory of evolution is about changes than about origins. Actually, there is not too much difference. If one believes that life originated from non-life, it, in effect, states the evolution of non-life to life. Some evolutionists claim that the origins of life is the study of chemicals, whereas evolution is the study of biology. The study of the universe is the study of physics and astronomy. Even if it where true that origins is a separate subject than evolution, for one to claim there is no Creator, one should have some explanation as to how life, as well as the origin of matter, originated. If you have no plausible explanation for either how matter originated or how life originated, stop ridiculing those who believe in a Creator. Obviously, for you, your confidence and faith is in science. For those who believe in a Deity, they put their faith, trust, and confidence in another source that is beyond science. Neither view is provable.

====================================================

TheJackelantern Post 216: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:52 pm wrote:
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?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Now you are trying to argue whether there is a Creator or not. This argument, as you would agree, is not provable by scientific methods. As I mentioned previously, I would rather stick to scientific topics and keep God out of our discussions. But to answer your question, the attributes of a Creator would be beyond your (or anyone else’s) ability to comprehend. It is difficult to comprehend how something could have no beginning. It is equally difficult to comprehend how something could come from nothing. This is beyond science and I would rather not discuss it here as whether a deity exists or not is beyond anything that could be scientifically proven. Believing in a Deity would therefore be a matter of faith, possibly based on one’s knowledge of their perception of origins.

=====================================================

My (Critical_Thinker) comment:
When you do not respond directly to any of my comments, what am I to think? Would you like a list?

TheJackelantern Post 239: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:18 pm
I responded to pretty much the very bulk of your main arguments.. Especially when considering your main arguments from from discredited sources, and demonstrated as such. I don't even need bother going any further in this debate.


My (Critical_Thinker) response:
Speaking of credible sources, Alan Hayward, in his book, “Creation and Evolution – Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible� stated:
“One purpose of this book is to present the case for ancient-creationism.

TheJackelantern Post 239: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:18 pm
Have any peer reviewed material?... Like I donno, something that actually shows Creation in action? Perhaps some photographs of GOD done it? You want to be taken seriously here, you need to do a better job than posting stuff that just makes assertions that presume them as magical facts when the evidence proves otherwise.

My (Critical_Thinker) comment:
have been drawn exclusively from the writings of evolutionists who oppose Darwinism.

TheJackelantern Post 239: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:18 pm
No, you have been posting from creationist websites and material.. I even cited the sources in which your copy pasted material came from. Lie much?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Are you accusing me of lying or do you not realize that what you quoted is not what I said but from a book that I quoted. Below is what I copied and pasted:

Speaking of credible sources, Alan Hayward, in his book, “Creation and Evolution – Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible� stated:
“One purpose of this book is to present the case for ancient-creationism. But I shall not attempt to bludgeon the reader into agreeing with me. My first aim is to present facts, so that a thoughtful Christian can reach an informed decision as to where he stands. At the very least the book might help him to appreciate that there are other points of view besides his own. In Part 1 I have adopted an unusual method of opposing Darwinism. My arguments and quotations have been drawn exclusively from the writings of evolutionists who oppose Darwinism. This is because creationist writings have a reputation for being unscholarly mixtures of correct and incorrect statements, sound and unsound arguments. Some are not at all like that, but enough are to have given the whole class a bad name. So it seemed best to disregard all arguments emanating from creationist sources. Creationists also have an unhappy reputation for making misleading quotations from evolutional writers. By quoting only a part of what he has written it is sometimes possible to make an evolutionist sound like a creationist… I have tried not to make this mistake, and to be scrupulously fair to all the writers quoted.�
(Alan Hayward. Creation and Evolution – Rethinking the Evidence From Science and the Bible. Publication Date: 2005. Wipf and Stock Publishers. Eugene, OR. P. 8)

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
If you read Alan Hayward’s book, you would be forced to admit that he only quoted from evolutionist material. Again, please read my posts thoroughly before replying. How many times have I corrected your errors? Either you are too hasty in your replies or you are not really reading what I am posting. If you are tired when you reply, I would suggest that you do not attempt to respond to my posts unless you have adequate rest. If not, are you attempting to discredit me? Why don’t you read Alan Hayward’s book and then criticize it? You obviously believe you know what is in it without reading it. You want me to read your material but you refuse to read anything that does not support Darwinism, even articles and commentaries that were not peer reviewed. Then you criticize me for copying and pasting Creationist material!!!
==================================================

I (Critical_Thinker) wrote:
(and hence “irreducible complex�) was not disproved during this trial.

TheJackelantern Post 248: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:51 am


Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
I viewed the “The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked� video you suggested. The speaker attempts to refute Michael Behe’s claim that the bacteria flagellum is irreducibly complex. The video is interesting, however, it is very debatable whether he successfully debunked Michael Behe’s illustration of irreducible complexity, especially due to the fact he there was no one on the stage that could refute the speaker’s claims.

---

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
To refute the theory of “Irreducible Complexity� the speaker used the illustration that if you take away 40 parts of the flagella you will still have a functioning organism with only 10 parts remaining. I do not know if he chose 40 specific proteins to remove or whether he removed 40 proteins at random. He did not provide any specifics. I would guess that he removed 40 specific proteins so that the 10 specific proteins that remained would be the proteins needed to make up the Type III Secretory System.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The speaker stated that according to the “Irreducible Complexity� theory, the remaining 10 parts of the flagellum should be non functional. However, according to the speaker’s illustration, the 10 remaining proteins make up the Type III Secretory System (10 parts), which is a molecular syringe, which is perfectly functional.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Suppose 40 parts were randomly removed? Would the remaining random 10 parts have any function? The speaker also specifically mentioned that the other 40 parts that were removed from the flagellum could also have some other function outside of the flagellum, but I do not believe he stated any specific functions the proteins could have outside of the flagellum. That should not be surprising as everything living is made up of cells and proteins.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
I would therefore suppose that the 10 proteins that make up the Type III Secretory System would be able to function independently apart from either the Type III Secretory System or the flagellum.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The question is, what function would half of the proteins (5) that make up the Type III Secretory System have? I do not believe I am being picky here. Evolutionary thought claims that every living thing in existence developed by natural means. That is, once the living cell developed and living proteins came into existence, it was only a matter of time and chance until different types of proteins came together to form more complex organisms. If this were true, then we should assume that each part (protein) would serve some function outside of a complex organism. Evolutionists have no explanation as to how different types of proteins could come together and self-assembled to form a functional organism and how even more complex organisms could evolve from simpler organisms.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
In other words, how could a simple organism add a protein or another organism to itself and develop a different functioning organism? I believe that there would be a big possibility that the original organism that received an additional protein or another organism would cease to function, as any additional part could either prove beneficial or detrimental to the original organism.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
I am sure the speaker was only demonstrating that the Flagellum is made up of pre-existing independent parts and is therefore not an “Irreducible Complex� organism; however, he does not explain how the flagellum or any other complex organism could have self-assembled by natural processes. Remember, the flagellum is only a tiny organism that exists in more complex organisms, such as human beings.

------

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The closest thing that biologists have been able to find as a possible evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum is what’s known as a Type III Secretory System (TTSS) (See Figure 14.1 base of flagellum). The TTSS is a type of pump that enables certain pathogenic bacteria to inject virus-type proteins into host organisms. One bacterium possessing the TTSS is Yersinia pestis, the organism responsible for the black plague that during the Fourteenth Century killed a third of the population of Europe. The TTSS was the delivery system by which Yersinia pestis inflicted its massive destruction of human life.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
continued on next post

[Critical_Thinker]

vvvv Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 post vvvv
continued from previous post

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The ten or so proteins that go into the construction of the TTSS are similar (homologous) to proteins found in the bacterial flagellum. What’s more, the TTSS corresponds roughly to the part of the flagellum used in the construction of its filament, the long whip-like tail. However it is not simply a matter of substituting the TTSS for the corresponding part of the bacterial flagellum to have a functioning flagellum. This is because the proteins in the TTSS are not adapted to the proteins of the bacterial flagellum, the resulting monstrosity would be nonfunctional. Despite such difficulties relating the TTSS to the bacterial flagellum, suppose the TTSS is treated as a subsystem of the flagellum. As a subsystem, it performs a function distinct from the flagellum. Finding a subsystem of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. Indeed, multipart, tightly integrated functional systems almost invariably contain multipart subsystems that could serve some different function.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The TTSS does represent one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. This, however, would still not provide a solution to how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. What is needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible scenario. There’s another problem here as well. The whole point of mentioning the TTSS was to speculate it as an evolutionary predecessor to the bacterial flagellum. The best current evidence put forward by evolutionary biologists, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa. The bacterial flagellum is a motility structure for propelling a bacterium through its watery environment. Water has been around since the origin of life. Indeed, evolutionary biologists believe that the bacterial flagellum is 2 to 3 billion years old. But the TTSS is a delivery system for animal and plant pathogens. Its function therefore depends on existence of multicellular organisms. Accordingly, the TTSS could only have been around since the rise of multicellular organisms, which evolutionary biologists place around 600 million years ago. It follows that the TTSS does not explain the evolution of the flagellum.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The bacterial flagellum could explain the evolution of the TTSS. But even that isn’t quite right. The TTSS is, after all, much simpler than the flagellum. The TTSS contains ten or so proteins that are homologous to proteins in the flagellum. The flagellum requires an additional thirty or forty proteins, which are unique. Evolution needs to explain the emergence of complexity from simplicity. But if the TTSS evolved from the flagellum, then all we’ve done is explain the simpler in terms of the more complex. Despite these difficulties, Darwinists continue to speculate the TTSS as an evolutionary predecessor to the bacterial flagellum. Some of them even go so far as to speculate a few intermediate structures by which the TTSS is supposed to have evolved into bacterial flagellum. To justify how the flagellum could have evolved, Darwinists need to show that each step in it is reasonably likely to follow from the previous one. This requires being able to assess the probability of transitioning from one step to the next. And this in turn presupposes that the biological structures at each step are described in sufficient detail so that it is possible to assess the probabilities of transitioning between steps.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Evolutionary biologists never provide any details to explain their models. The steps in these models are so unspecific and absent of detail that these questions are unanswerable. To actually test such models requires being able to evaluate the likelihood of transitioning from one step in the model to the next. Yet because the intermediate systems described at the various transitional steps are so lacking in detail, as they are hypothetical, they do not, as far as we know, currently exist in nature, they are not available in any laboratory, and researchers for now have no experimental procedures for generating them in the laboratory, the models offer no way to carry out this evaluation.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
One way to disprove irreducible complexity would be to take a type three secretory system along with the missing proteins required to convert it into a flagellum. If a flagellum develops from the type three secretory system, then irreducible complexity would be disproved. Evolutionists, however, claim that this is an impossible test because it took millions of years for a flagellum to develop, however, in a laboratory, in a controlled environment, it should not take that long.
====================================================

TheJackelantern Post 248: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:51 am

The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Dr. Eugenie C. Scott provides more dialog about why creationists are wrong and
very little discussion about how the eye could have actually developed. If this video is illustrative of evolutionists’ explanation of how the eye could have evolved, it is very unconvincing. Dr. Eugenie C. Scott spent more time discussing Charles Darwin’s observations than she did about refuting creationists’ claims. She discusses different types of eyes but fails to adequately explain how each could have evolved, other than the general concepts that simple eyes evolved into more complex eyes. She does not, however, adequately explain how this could have occurred.

TheJackelantern Post 248: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:51 am

Irreducible complexity cut down to size

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
This video appears to be more of a defense of Charles Darwin than disproving the view of “irreducible complexity.� The video illustrates the typical scenario that a simple eye evolved into a complex eye. Hypotheses are good but whether the eye could have actually occurred as illustrated is another matter that has yet to be explained or adequately demonstrated biologically. How could a creature have been able to see while the eye was in the process of changing to a different eye type? Evolutionists claim that it would have taken millions of years for the eye to have evolved from a simple eye type. I find it difficult to believe that a creature with an eye in the process of evolving into a different eye would not have lost clarity during this process. It is also difficult to believe that the creature would not have lost vision completely during this process. If eyesight either diminished or lost during this evolutionary transition, how would the creatures with the transitional eyes been able to survive predators and been able to find food and live?

The video also discusses other creationist claims as well, such as whether a slight change in a chemical makeup would cause a bomber beetle to explode.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The video then discusses Michael Behe’s claim of certain organisms being irreducible complex. The Michael Behe’s illustration of a mouse trap is discussed. The concept of an irreducible complex organism is more about how such an organism could have developed from simpler organisms. The question is how biologically could such simpler organisms could have combined to perform a completely different function. Also, each separate organism would need to be specific sizes and shapes before combining with the more complex organism to become functional with the new function. The video reminds the viewer that evolution is non-directional and has no specific goal in mind.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Some illustrations are presented about non-living items such as watches and guitars producing offspring. “Guitars don’t mate and give birth therefore sexual reproduction and pregnancy must be fantasy.� “Watches don’t grow from cells therefore neither did I.� These are what evolutionists call straw-man arguments as no creationist has ever made these claims. Michael Behe’s illustration of a mouse trap was an attempt to illustrate that a complex organism such as the bacteria flagellum could not have functioned if not all of its various parts (organisms) were in place. It is on the evolutionist to explain how the individual parts of the bacteria flagellum originated, what the original function the part performed (otherwise the organism would have most likely been eliminated by natural selection as being useless), and how the individual organism could have linked up with the more complex and remained functional during the course of the evolution of the more (irreducible) complex organism. If the combined organisms did not perform some viable function, how could it have survived? Wouldn’t it have been eliminated by natural selection as useless?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Then the the Mullerian two-step is given by a stone bridge is explained. (1) First, three stones are lined up side by side. (2) Then, add a part, which in this case would be to add the top stone over the existing three stones. (3) Then, finally, make it necessary by removing the middle stone. The completed irreducibly complex stone bridge is now complete. For the Darwinian mechanism to produce an irreducibly complex system by means of a scaffold or stone bridge, the system plus a scaffold or stone bridge must have served a different function up until all the core components of the final irreducibly complex system became available, snapped into place, and formed a functional system. But in that case the scaffold example becomes inappropriate. A scaffold or a stone bridge is for constructing a structure serving a definite function and not for evolving structures whose functions are likewise evolving.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Evolutionists do not have any explanation as to how a simple organism could unite with another organism and take on a new function while continuing to perform some function until the newly combined organism develops a new beneficial function.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
How the Venus flytrap is then discussed.
The evolutionist admits there is insufficient fossil evidence to determine the evolution of the Venus flytrap. The evolutionist here is only guessing as to how this plant could have evolved from a sundew plant. The two plants mentioned may be related, but there is no evidence that one plant evolved from the other. The flaw with this argument is the assumption that the Drosera sundew plant existed prior to the Venus flytrap. There is no evidence to support this claim. There is no explanation provided here as to how the Venus flytrap could have evolved from the Drosera sundew plant or any evidence to backup the claim that the Drosera sundew plant existed prior to the Venus flytrap plant, or that the Venus flytrap evolved from anything.

TheJackelantern Post 248: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:51 am

ID Creationism and Bacterial Chemotaxis

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
The claim made during this video state that “Intelligent Design Creationism is for people too lazy to read.� The video then shows the quote, “Starting with a set of non-interacting proteins, we evolve a signal transduction network [of the chemotaxis of bacteria] by random mutation and selection to fulfill a complex biological task.�

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
This video, in my opinion, was more informative and comprehensive than the other three you suggested. This video illustrates how the bacteria flagellum could have originated and is much more convincing than the other three. Biologically, the problem with the scenario presented is that it does not adequately explain how the simpler organisms could have linked with the larger, more complex, organism piecemeal while being fully functional during every step during the evolutionary process, as each simpler organism was incorporated into a larger, and became functional in a more complex organism. I say “functional� because evolutionists would agree that if an organism is not functional, it is doubtful whether it would continue to exit or not. Also, each simpler organism must be of the correct size and shape before linking with the larger, more complex, organism, otherwise the simpler organism would not be able to bind (link up) to the more complex organism. Also, every piece (the simpler organisms) would need to, within a relatively short period of time before the more complex organism proved to be useless and eliminated by natural selection, begin to perform its new function soon after being linked up to the more complex organism.

TheJackelantern Post 248: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:51 am
http://www.physorg.com/news64046019.html
Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
The article was interesting but did not provide any convincing evidence how the hormone aldosterone could have originated. I would have rather read more information regarding the bacteria flagellum than a different molecular system.

TheJackelantern Post 248: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:51 am

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... e_com.html
Irreducible Complexity proven to evolve

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
This article mentions the typical scenario that the complex eye evolved from a more primitive eye but fails to adequately explain how this could have occurred while it was in the process of evolving into the more complex eye. No explanation was given to explain how the creatures with the transitional eyes were able to see during this transition. At some point during the development of the complex eye, would a creature (or group of creatures) have been unable to see? If natural changes are random, a change that would have been advantageous could have been followed by a change (or changes) that would have been detrimental to the creature. How many generations would it have taken for the complex eye to have developed? How would the specific creatures (or different species) have been able to survive if they were not able to see in an environment where sight would have been necessary to survive against predators and for the creatures to have been able to obtain their own food?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The article also discusses how a computer was utilized to simulate how the complex eye could have evolved. The description of what occurred as a result of the execution of the computer program was very impressive, although I did not actually see the execution myself. The article mentioned that there was a free download for creationists to critique, however, it was not mentioned where the download was loaded. I did an internet search, but was not able to find the download for this simulation of how the eye could have evolved. This is interesting illustration as to how the evolution could have occurred but it is not the same as an actual biological example.

---------

http://noblesseoblige.org/2009/05/27/ir ... ked-again/

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
This is another Dr. Eugenie C. Scott video. She discusses the usual scenario that other evolutionists use by claiming that the eye evolved gradually from a simple type eye to a more complex on.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
The hypothesis begins with pigmented cells on the surface of the skin. As time passes genetic changes causes the pigmented area to become more recessed. At the same time the pigmented cells develop on the skin (or shortly thereafter) (or perhaps the nerve fibers originated first) developing the Pigmented Layer (retina), the area becomes more and more recessed, eventually being filled with fluid. The nerve fibers develop into the more complex Optic Nerve. The Pigmented Cells become more pronounced and become the Retina. Then the Epithelium is added. Then the Cornea and the Lens develop to cover the opening of the cavity where the fluid developed. The Iris also forms during this time.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Eventually, the Ciliary Muscle, Ciliary Body, Fovea Centralis, Sciera, Choriod, Anterior Chamber (Aqueous Humor), Posterior Chamber (Aqueous Humor), Pupil, Vitreous Humor, Crystalline Lens, Lens Cortex, Zonular Fibers, Posterior Zonules, all form that allows virtually perfect (or near perfect) vision. The order of development may be accurate. All of this is performed by a non-directional, no purpose, random process performed by blind random genetic changes along with natural selection. And during the thousands of years for this process to have completed, the creatures with the transitional eyes obviously had some degree of vision or they would not have survived.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Since soft tissue does not fossilize, there is no real way of knowing exactly what occurred for the complex eye to have evolved by natural processes. The question is, did the mammal type eye evolve through one path or did it develop through several different paths?

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
I read that instead of eyes evolving forty or more different times in evolutionary
history, it appears that this simple genetic complex led to the embryological development and evolutionary refinement of a two-part system; in some species one part is incorporated, and in others both are. Instead of an extensive genetic tool kit with genes for constructing each and every bodily structure, research has shown that a small set of gene complexes such as the Hox genes and the Pax-6 genes are turned on in different and unique ways that can generate large-scale changes in a non-incremental fashion. It is not the number of genes that counts so much as how genes are turned on or off.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Evolutionists claim that researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. If the evolutionary history of eyes has been tracked through comparative genetics, how is it that eyes have supposedly evolved independently? Some evolutionists believe that eyes must have developed independently at least 30 times because there is no evolutionary pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common ancestor. Others, however, believe the complex eye developed only once as a result of Hox genes and the Pax 6 genes being turned on at different stages of development. It seems amazing that genes developed the ability to be either turned on or off by a random, non-directional, no intelligence process.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/b ... erall.html
'Irreducible Complexity' is Reducible Afterall

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Below is part of what was stated in the article:
“The intelligent design camp also argues that some biological structures are just too … sophisticated to have evolved through random mutation and natural selection. They must therefore have been designed by an intelligent agent. In particular, since complex structures have lots of components, how could the components have been just hanging around for eons waiting for the final component to emerge? Think of it this way: if you don’t already have all the other components of a mousetrap, why would you keep a spring around? A spring is only useful if you also have the base, the bar and the rest. This is the argument called “irreducible complexity,� and it has proved very persuasive to the public.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 quoting the web article in part - continued:
It’s always dangerous to base your argument on some version of “scientists have never found X� (with X in this case being components of a complex structure existing and serving a function before the rest of the components showed up). That’s because those darn scientists keep making discoveries. If you want to say they “have never found . . . ,� you’d better understand that what you really mean is “they haven’t found it yet.� “

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response (continued):
The scenarios presented by evolutionists appear to be very simple and straightforward, however, in reality, the biological process is not so simple. I admit that certain molecules could adapt to other organisms and perform different functions, however, it is not an easy task for a molecule to link up with a more complex organism and begin to perform a new function immediately that would be beneficial to the more complex organism.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Darwinists claim that a gradual increase in complexity in which new parts that enhance function are added and alternately become indispensable. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job, but perhaps, not very well. Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn’t essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts become integrated into the system. Eventually, many parts become essential for the organism to function. For this to occur the functions of each part during the stages of evolving would be different from the final function because the final function is exhibited by an irreducibly complex system, and as such, cannot be part of any simpler system.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Prior to a complex organism functioning as a completed organism, all the simpler components need to have already been developed, most likely independently. The complex organism most likely would not have survived if it were non-functional until the other necessary parts link up with the complex organism and immediately begin to take on the new function within the more complex organism. It may be possible that during the developmental period, the multi-component organism might serve as some other function or capacity until the entire complex organism has developed. The question is, what function would a partly completed multi-component organism have had? Would it have performed the same basic function as the completed complex organism or would it most likely served some other purpose? If the multi-component organism became hindered by an additional component (or components), most likely the multi-component organism would have become less functional and perhaps may have been detrimental to the multi-component, more complex organism. Would the multi-component organism get rid of the component that proved to be a hindrance or would the detrimental component prove fatal to the multi-component organism? How would a new component begin to perform a new function as being part of a more complex organism? The evolutionary process of a complex organism is more complicated than is usually portrayed by evolutionists.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
Evolutionists would most likely admit the actual process would be difficult to accomplish, especially considering that evolutionary changes are non-directional, random genetic changes with no goal or purpose, however, they would add that given enough time just about anything could happen. It is a process of trial and error. I suppose the biggest difference between creationists and evolutionists is that creationists view something complex and conclude there is no way for something so complex to have developed on its own. Evolutionists, however, view the complex organism differently. They begin with the premise that the organism had to have originated by genetic changes and that the explanation should be determined. Evolutionists then set out by creating hypotheses about how something could have developed. Then they perform experiments to determine if the hypothesis is plausible or not. If no experiments disprove the hypothesis, then the theory remains. The question is, is there sufficient evidence to substantiate the hypothesis? Evolutionists might say yes while creationists would not be so easily persuaded.

=====================================================
TheJackelantern Post 225: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:51 am wrote:
try finding creationist peer reviewed journals.. You will note that they don't have any, or any that actually could be used against evolution.. And btw, all creationist sites use the same source material and arguments for the most part. Their material is trash, and thus not really worth my time considering their positions have been debunked thousands of times over. If you can find me actual scientific peer reviewed journals, that would be great. So do me a favor, don't bother copy pasting stuff off a creationist website, I won't even bother addressing it.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response:
Peer reviewed articles are documents that contain scientific information. My understanding of the peer review system is that it is a tightly controlled system by scientists with an evolutionary perspective. No other viewpoints are considered. Therefore, I would not expect to see very many articles from creationists to have been peer reviewed. This, to me, does not indicate that since no creationist documents have been peer reviewed (there may be some but I am not aware of any) that they are not to be considered. It only means that they do not have an evolutionary perspective. Since evolution is an objectionable topic, it is debatable. If a creationist writes something that is blatantly false, I would expect an evolutionist to demonstrate why the premise is incorrect. By the way, evolutionists re-use the same talking points just as creationists do.

Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 response continued:
There is nothing wrong with talking points as long as it has not adequately refuted (debunked as you say) by the opponents. Evolutionists, for example, may claim that creationist talking points have been refuted multiple times. Creationists, however, may claim that the evolutionist arguments are not convincing (circumstantial evidence). This is understandably frustrating for someone who totally believes that the evidence is indeed convincing but the opposition refuses to accept it. I do not believe that it is a matter of creationists (at least some of them) ignoring or not wanting to believe the evidence. It is just that from their perspective, it is not convincing.

Again, TheJackelantern and company, thank you for the information you provided. In spite of what some of you may think, I did review the majority of the information you have provided. I really appreciate it. It was a real help in my evaluation of the evolution/creation controversy. I suppose I could say that you guys (and lady) were my peer reviewers. Thanks !!!

^^^ Critical_Thinker 2/26/2012 post end ^^^

[Autodidact]

@Critical Thinker: We have a quote function. Please learn how to use it.

[Seljuk]

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?

It shouldn't matter, we have cases of both being observed within laboratories. For example, entire new SPECIES of moths have been seen in experiments, and the Granny Smith apple originated naturally in Australia within the last 100 or so years.