Posts by tkmmorgan

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

I must apoligize for my last post. It was out of line and didn't contribute anything. I respect the intelligence of everyone who has posted here. You have given me lots of reading to do (whether you believe I will read it or not) and cleared a couple of misconceptions I had about TOE. I haven't yet read anything that proves macro-evolution for me. I will state again that I don't believe creation has been proven either.

The fact that a new strain of flu comes out every year completely destroys his pathetic arguemnt. Obviously random mutations are causing the virus to change since viruses don't reproduce sexually. The same is true with bacteria. If his argument were true, then we wouldn't need to worry about getting new flu shots every year. Biological systems are not directly analogous to the english language, so his little example is ridiculous

I personally don't think that destroys the arguement at all. The virus changes but is still a virus, in fact is still a flu virus.It didn't turn into an aids virus or a cancer. I.M.O. just like there are many kinds of cats or dogs, but a black lab's pups are still dogs even if the sire is a bulldog. I have said before that I agree evolution happens on that level. You are correct about his english language example and I also think that it is too simple put that way, but I think it was there just to show the concept not actually prove anything. The fact that we are medically contemplating genetic screening for birth defects or diseases says to me that the medical community knows that small genetic mutations cause huge problems and even death. The small genetic difference between us and apes stops reproduction between us(good thing considering some peoples depravity) and hybrid animals like the mule are almost 100% sterile which means they can't pass on the changes they have even though they aren't even mutations. Even though horses and donkeys are close enough genetically to breed they obviously aren't close enough to create a complete genome.

As we unlock the secrets of the human genome, we're learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some, including many cancers, are caused by a mutation in a gene or group of genes in the cells of an individual. Such mutations can occur randomly or due to exposure to some environmental insult. Other genetic disorders are hereditary - such as Huntington's disease or Tay-Sachs disease - where a mutated gene is passed down through a family and each generation of children can inherit the gene that causes the disease. But most genetic disorders are "multifactorial inheritance disorders," meaning they are caused by a combination of small variations in genes, often in concert with environmental factors. Through research on the human genome, we now know that many common diseases usually caused by genetic alterations in the genes of an individual's cells - such as breast cancer and colon cancer - also have rare hereditary forms. In these cases, gene variants that cause or strongly predispose a person to these cancers run in a family and significantly increase each member's risk of developing the disease. http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10001204 for reference

The 46 human chromosomes (22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and 2 sex chromosomes) between them house almost 3 billion base pairs of DNA that contains about 30,000 - 40,000 protein-coding genes. This is a much smaller number than predicted - only twice as many as in the worm or fly model organisms. The coding regions make up less than 5% of the genome (the function of the remaining DNA is not clear) and some chromosomes have a higher density of genes than others. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/

AD tends to run in families: currently, mutations in four genes, situated on chromosomes 1, 14, 19 and 21, are believed to play a role in the disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/Alzheimer.html

In some illnesses, such as Huntington's disease, a single defective gene causes the disease in everyone who inherits it. http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10001217There is no cure for this fatal disease. http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10001215

A single mutated gene out of 30k-40k can cause a fatal disease. I have read much that tells me that high level evolutionary scientists know there are holes in the theory and so the theory itself is constantly evolving. This debate will continue to go round and round in a lot higher levels of education than mine and until some of the questions I have are answered to my satisfaction I cannot believe it. So until then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.I don't have all the answers to the questions and that is why I'm even here talking to you. So once again thanks for taking the time to respond, I don't think any of you are idiots, I simply disagree.

My wife is pissed because I've spent the last 4 days or so doing nothing but reading your posts and info and searching for the opposing viewpoint. I do appreciate the fact that some of the evolution pages do present links to what they believe to be science minded opposers to their theory, but that makes the amount of info to consider vast. I have to put a new roof on my house because winter is coming fast here and some other things I've been neglecting, but I hope I get the chance to converse with you in the future even though you probably think I'm an idiot.

Thanks for an enlightening discussion.

I'm out.

Todd

edited to add the references to quotes

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 27 September 2002 15:25:55

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 27 September 2002 15:51:9

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

Oh so if you quote it and it supports what you believe then it's all good, but if it comes from someone who you don't agree with it's worthless. By your standard whatever I post is worthless simply because it doesn't agree with your theory of evolution. You attack the messenger with someone else's biased words but can't accept anything else as even remotely viable. Sorry that sort of debating holds no water with me. Maybe works for the lurkers whom I guess you guys are posting too. I'm expected to put up peer reviewed material but the website you get all your info from is basically a newsgroup. Whatever you think of his qualifications the paper was

Submitted to Pacific College of Graduate Studies, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and Poplar Bluff, Missouri, U.S.A.

which makes it peer reviewed.

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

Here is Dr. Carl Baugh's doctoral dissertation. http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/ does that qualify for a peer reviewed study? And you don't have an agenda? Give me a break!

Gould was saying that the fossil record did not show GRADUALISM, but instead shows various periods of stasis punctuated by rapid Evolution (rapid on evolutionary timescales).

I'll give you the gradualism, but not the rest. His second point distinctly says it appears all at once and fully formed.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

Just because a scientist makes a claim doesn't make a thing a fact.

Unless what he says supports what you want to believe. I will do some more research on the genetic changes point from Maddox, I don't have time to do more today.I have never claimed to not be getting my info from creation websites, however some has come from talkorigins. To point out what I have already admitted does what exactly for your arguements?

I'll respond more fully when I have more time.See ya tomorrow

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 26 September 2002 17:58:53

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 26 September 2002 18:0:7

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 26 September 2002 18:0:26

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

And the evolutionists do it to. This is pointless.

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 26 September 2002 16:13:15

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

Did I say they were against it? To the contrary, they were totally for it and completely opposed to any other model. Just read the quotes. Gould even said the fossil record didn't show what they professed to study. Here I'll post one again:

In the fossil record we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )

But I contend because of this, which you obviously didn't bother to read or just can't refute:

Any random change in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/archives/maddox.htm for the whole article

That it didn't happen at all. That's why it was never seen in the fossil record.

And there's that pesky little "probably" meaning there is no evidence to back it up.

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 26 September 2002 16:14:27

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

Thanks crownboy, lots of good info there. I see your point about the 250k offer. It is useless to the scientific community because of how they define evolution. Defining it as heritable genetic change is so broad as to be useless for debate purposes, that happens all the time naturally and with man's interference-animal breeding programs. According to the talk origins websites difinition I posted above, though that includes "the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions". That is what I find no evidence of, in fact I find that the leading evolutionary scientists have a problem with that themselves and discard as curious anomalies things like Archaeopteryx.

At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Bauplne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

In the fossil record we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )

How about http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html did you check that one out?To say there is no scientific data that supports the creation model is just as uniformed as my saying evolution is here to promote Godlessness. Sorry for that one it appears I was wrong.To restrict the creation model to a couple verses of the Bible and built on faith alone (there is just as much faith in believing macro-evolution considering the millions of years gaps in the fossil record and Gould's above statement) is also as much a misconception as my definition of evolution. It also shows that there hasn't been an honest examination of facts. There is nothing that leads even the foremost evolutionist scientists to conclude that evolution is indisputable fact.

[macro-evolution]cannot be refuted thus is outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )

the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

Any random change in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/archives/maddox.htm for the whole article

You should know who Hoyle, Gould, and Eldridge are and I will post some of the qualifications of the other 2.

Ehrlich

...his invariable insistence on the repeated proof by many experiments of the results he published...Ehrlich was an ordinary, foreign, corresponding or honorary member of no less than 81 academies and other learned bodies in Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, ltaly, The Netherlands, Norway, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey, the U.S.A. and Venezuela. He held honorary doctorates of the Universities of Chicago, Gttingen, Oxford, Athens and Breslau, and was also honoured by Orders in Germany, Russia, Japan, Spain, Roumania, Serbia, Venezuela, Denmark (Commander Cross of the Danebrog Order), and Norway (Commander Cross of the Royal St. Olaf Order). In 1887 he received the Tiedemann Prize of the Senckenberg Naturforschende Gesellschaft at Frankfurt/Main, in 1906 the Prize of Honour at the XVth International Congress of Medicine at Lisbon, in 1911 the Liebig Medal of the German Chemical Society, and in 1914 the Cameron Prize of Edinburgh. In 1908 he shared with Metchnikoff the highest scientific distinction, the Nobel Prize.

Maddox

Dr. Barney Maddox holds a B.S. in biology from Texas Christian University and an M.D. from UTSW Medical School in Dallas. His residency in urology was done through the University of Missouri, and he now is in private practice. In 1997 Dr. Maddox was a committee member on the Texas State Schoolbook Panel, for biology.

We all bring our prejudices to the table when looking at evidence and this debate is constantly being fought by much greater minds than mine. We could post refutations of refutations until we were blue in the face and it wouldn't matter one bit. I appreciate being pointed to information but please do me the courtesy of looking at the other side, scientifically too. I have no illusions that you will because at the very least, if you are honest, this stuff will cast doubt on your position. Claiming I am some kind of idiot with reading comprehension problems or something of the sort does your arguments no good. Even if I was it wouldn't prove that evolution was true. As can be demonstrated there is no undisputed (not by me, real scientists in material on the talkorigins site) proofs of macro-evolution. I have never said creation could be proven either.

Has macro-evolution stopped? If not how come the only supposed "proof" of it anybody can find is in the fossil record? If it has stopped, why? Please point me to some info that answers those questions.

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

Evolution is heritable genetic change. Those are my own words. Help any?

Actually, yes. I have no problem with that. It proves that we are arguing two different things.

the heart of my argument, the transitions
That's not the heart of the argument. Evolution is a very slow process - indeed, ALL organisms can be thought of as 'transitional' - so what are you specifically looking for as criteria?

You'll notice the my there. I'm looking for an ape that has enough human characteristics to no longer be ape but not enough human to be human. A transitional species proving a clear progression from ape to man.

Did you read the rebuttal to the rebuttal?

Yes, did you read all of them?

Further, you keep holding that mutation is key to evolution. It is not. Evolution is heritable change in genetic codes over time. That DOES INCLUDE "how breeders can breed selectively and how all natural variation happens". Surprise - THAT'S EVOLUTION.

That is no surprise. I'm not arguing against evolution in that broad a sense. Only against macro-evolution. I am not arguing that mutation is the key to evolution, simply that it is the key to my belief in it. I am not a scientist but, without gainfull mutation macro-evolution cannot happen.

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

Liberty,

I'm not trying to convert anybody. Forget God and the Bible.I believe in them but that is totally immaterial to the arguement here. How about I argue intelligent design and you guys argue macro-evolution? I don't have a problem with the other definitions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html gives this definition and it is what I can't bring myself to believe. The emphasis is mine:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

I have to go to work now but I'll be back tomorrow.

Todd

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

Xander, just for fun, I'll post from the rebuttal to the source of your definitions

EVOLUTION
Wayne Duck: changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of time
The Truth: Ducks definition is broad enough to cover everything from a blue-eyed child with brown-eyed parents to the proposed change from a unicellular organism to trees, penguins, and humans. While this definition is therefore technically correct, it must be noted that what is being argued is not mere variation but changes in body types and functions due to mutations and natural selection over long periods of timei.e., macroevolution.
MICRO-EVOLUTION
Wayne Duck: the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population
The Truth: This is exactly how breeders can breed selectively and how all natural variation happens. It does not depend on either mutation or natural selection as the varieties present in sexually reproducing populations are due to the mixing of the two individual parents DNA.
MACRO-EVOLUTION
Wayne Duck: major transformations of organisms over geological time
The Truth: To clarify, major refers to changes in body type or function (e.g., new organs or broad physiological changes). This concept rests on the four legs of time, chance, mutations, and natural selection. It is a purely theoretical phenomenon, and has not been scientifically observed.
GENETIC VARIATION
Wayne Duck: the genetic difference between members of a population
The Truth: Genetic variation can be determined on an individual basis, on a population basis, or on a time basis. Narrowly defining it only in terms of a difference between members wrongly ignores every other application, as if to exclude population-wide shifts in the manifestation of existing genetic information (which is essentially the same thing as micro-evolution).

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

Sorry xander I went straight to what was the heart of my argument, the transitions. This thread would be forgotten by the time I got time to read everything there. I was hoping you could sum it up for me.

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

tkmmorgan

4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11.

That is what I believe and it was defined in the opening of this thread. You have yet to define what you believe is evolution. You tell me what it is not but don't say what it is. I posted that because that is what I was taught as evolution in school. I am chided for "spewing" the ideas of others but then when I ask what should be a simple question for you, to define what you believe as evolution, you can't even answer in your own words you just direct me to some website. I would just go to Google and do a search if that is all I wanted. By the way, Darwin's book is called "The Origin of Species" so obviously this has something to do with evolution.

The very first supposed transition in the material I was directed to is the species-species transition of ape to man. So unless you believe ape and man are the same species I don't really know what the point is to your post cellomould.

But it is not at all uncertain that bacteria, thanks to their rapid reproduction rates, are evolving under our eyes.

However it's not at all certain that it is either.

It is obvious that we are all talking about different things so until you define evolution as you see it this is all a big waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

Todd

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 25 September 2002 15:53:11

Edited by - tkmmorgan on 25 September 2002 15:55:17