[_ Old Earth _] The Development Stage Is Fatal

[Bronzesnake]

Hello my friends.
I thought I would try and expose yet another devastating problem for evolution Darwinian style! I’d like to discuss “irreducible complexityâ€.
Darwinian evolution would have us believe that life "somehow" came into existence from non life, which we know is scientifically impossible, but let’s let that little bug drown in the soup for the moment.
Evolutionists believe that life somehow began, and the first life forms were simple single celled bacteria. In my imagination as a young boy, I pictured a tiny little cell just floating around aimlessly in primordial goo on a hostile lonely planet.
Then, even as a young boy I began to understand the serious obstacles this so called simple single cell would encounter. It’s extremely lucky to have somehow come into existence in the first place, but it would have had to ended up in a situation where it was neither too hot nor too cold to survive.
It would have to be either moist or dry enough to accommodate its survival.
Would it require oxygen or some other gas, or combination of gasses to survive?
Then it would need a readymade source of nourishment, and what would that be? How much of an amazing coincidence would it be not only to have entered existence without any intelligent help, but also for the living conditions to be just right at that exact time and place in the assumed billions of years of time, to have all come together at that exact same moment. How much more amazing would it be for a food source to also just happen to come into the picture at that exact same time? Out of all the seconds within these assumed billions of years for all these elements to just somehow randomly have come into existence at that exact same moment...it’s just unbelievable, but the evolution scientists tell us that’s what happened and they should know right? I mean they were there to witness it right? Oh, wait...they weren’t there were they? I mean how could they have been that’s just silly...it’s their scientific instruments that have uncovered this reality, that’s it...their scientific methods and intelligence have exposed these fluke, random dumb luck chance happenings.

So anyway where were we? Oh ya this dumb single cell happens to have found itself in an ideal situation and a readymade err evolved source of food was available...but wait? What did the food evolve from? Oh forget these trivial details, the fact is we know this all happened because here we are right?

OK enough of the foolishness even though this is exactly what evolution tells us happened. We know that this is all logically impossible so let’s stop believing the fairy tale.
It turns out that the earliest life forms were actually extremely complex. As a matter of fact these life forms are so complex that they inspired an evolutionist professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Dr. Michael J. Behe, to come up with the new concept - “irreducible complexity.â€
Irreducible complexity: If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must initially be present in a suitably functioning manner, it is said to be irreducibly complex.

All the parts of a bacterial flagellum must have been present from the start in order to function at all. In 1996, Dr. Michael J. Behe published a challenging book to classical Darwinian evolution entitled “Darwin’s Black Box.†In this book he uses the flagellum to introduce the concept of “irreducible complexity.†If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must initially be present in a suitably functioning manner, it is said to be irreducibly complex. All the parts of a bacterial flagellum must have been present from the start in order to function at all.

This is a fact my friends. So this evolution story is simply not believable?
How could such a complex organism have just all of a sudden come to life?
It couldn’t have evolved because it cannot live for even a nano second without all of its parts. If even one part were to stop functioning the entire cell would die instantly.
The structural complexity and finely tuned coordination of the bacterial flagellum attests to the work of a master engineer who designed and created the flagellum to function in a wonderfully intricate manner.

Consider the light bulb.
It took the brightest scientific minds over 100 years to come up with a useful working model. The light bulb will not operate if any of its parts are absent or broken.
The light bulb required much thought and trial and error.
The greatest obstacle was finding the right material for the filament.
Thousands of different materials were experimented with.
Inert gas was introduced when it was discovered that oxygen was actually a detriment to a long lasting filament and caused too much heat and burned out the filament too soon.

The filament was coated with metal to stop it deteriorating.
The light bulb would be useless without a vacuum pump, glass for the bulb, a source of electricity and so on.
My point is that if the light bulb example were actually a life form the first attempt would have been the last because without all the required parts being formed all at the same time, in the right order and under the exact proper environmental conditions, it would have died and any hope of evolving into higher life forms would be lost!
And that is evolution which has no intelligent scientists working over a number of years and using different methods and materials to produce one light bulb!
Can you seriously believe life, which is far more complicated than any mechanical object on the planet, could have really come into existence, and evolved in a series of gradual steps through some fluke, random, dumb luck events with no intelligent creator?
Our best scientists today cannot produce the simplest of life forms from non life today and these people would have us believe they have it all worked out!

My friends, there are excellent scientists today who love Jesus and know that Darwinian evolution is a dream that never happened.
If common sense and pure logic isn’t enough to convince you, then please do yourself a huge favour and check into the creation side of the story.

You can go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/ for a start.

Take care my friends.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Rev216]

I do find it interesting that science knows what the universe was like at its creation 14.5 billions years ago but still can't seem to find out what causes my non-bacterical chronic prostatitis and how to cure it.
Priorities people! I agree with you that it is hard to imagine that life, in its simplest form, can arise from various non-living elements. And I have yet to see life spontaneously generated in a controlled testing enviornment.

 

[jwu]

Hi Bronzesnake,

you seem to be a bit outdated with your material. Irreducible complexity is actually well explained by the theory of evolution. The whole concept has been known as "interlocking complexity" since at least 1918 (Herman Muller), and mechanisms such as exaption and scaffolding that produce it have been identified.

Please note that according to the calculations of the same Michael Behe that you cited, which he laid out during the dover trial, thousands of IC systems evolve on earth every second.

 

[logical bob]

Here's a relevant article about the bacterial flagellum.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

Two main points: different species of bacteria have have differently built flagella, making it look less like something that can only work in one way and more like an example of evolutionary convergence.

Of the 23 proteins present in the E. coli flagellum, 21 are very similar to proteins occuring elsewhere in the bacterium. This supposedly irreducible mechanism is mostly made of spare parts from the same organism.

Elsewhere in your OP you seem to think science believes something as complex as a cell appeared spontaneously, which shows that you don't understand the theory at all. You also find it strange that the earliest living things matched their environment. Does it puzzle you that your model cars match the moulds they come from?

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, Behe recently admitted that irreducible complexity can evolve. He could hardly do otherwise; it's been directly observed.

Bacteriologist Barry Hall, studying the evolution of enzyme systems in bacterial cultures, discovered the unexpected evolution of an irreducibly complex new enzyme system.

That would have been impressive enough, but Hall's clever germs didn't stop there. When he selected them further to grow on another sugar (lactulose), he obtained a second series of mutants with a new enzyme that accidentally (in a sense) produced allolactose, the very same chemical signal that is normally used to switch on all of the lac genes. This important development meant that now the cells could switch on synthesis of a cell membrane protein, the lac permease, that speeds the entry of lactose into the cell. Summarizing this work, evolutionary biologist Douglas Futumya wrote:

Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations. [DJ Futumya, Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... Parts.html

 

[Bronzesnake]

I do find it interesting that science knows what the universe was like at its creation 14.5 billions years ago but still can't seem to find out what causes my non-bacterical chronic prostatitis and how to cure it.
Priorities people! I agree with you that it is hard to imagine that life, in its simplest form, can arise from various non-living elements. And I have yet to see life spontaneously generated in a controlled testing enviornment.

Hello my friend.
You know I was watching Bill Maher’s show “Real Time†tonight...ya, he's annoying in relation to his absolute hatred of God, but his show is entertaining.
Anyway, again, tonight he made reference about how nuts Christians are because they believe the universe and all life was "magically" brought into existence.

Well it occurred to me that if anyone believes in this kind of "magic" beginning, it's the atheists. They believe that "nothing" suddenly became "everything" without any intelligence, without any material to begin with and without any reason for anything! Now that’s magic!

Here’s a real conundrum for atheists. The atheist scientists are hard at work trying to create life in their labs.
Isn’t that a wee bit hypocritical of them? If their theory is correct then why do they believe it takes intelligent life to create life when they believe life happens on its own without any creator or intelligence?
If they ever do “create†life all they’ll have done is prove what us Christians have been telling them all along!

John Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hi Bronzesnake,

you seem to be a bit outdated with your material. Irreducible complexity is actually well explained by the theory of evolution. The whole concept has been known as "interlocking complexity" since at least 1918 (Herman Muller), and mechanisms such as exaption and scaffolding that produce it have been identified.

Please note that according to the calculations of the same Michael Behe that you cited, which he laid out during the dover trial, thousands of IC systems evolve on earth every second.

Hello my friend.

First of all “irreducible complexity†is not out of date and not a concept. It's a reality.
Don't take my word for it just pull out the hard drive from your computer and see what happens.

Anyway you made a statement which just goes to corroborate my argument.

thousands of IC systems evolve on earth every second

The last time I checked computers did not "suddenly" appear. They were conceived, designed and produced by human beings.
Same for their programs. Thank you for corroborating creation much appreciated.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Two main points: different species of bacteria have have differently built flagella, making it look less like something that can only work in one way and more like an example of evolutionary convergence.

Of the 23 proteins present in the E. coli flagellum, 21 are very similar to proteins occuring elsewhere in the bacterium. This supposedly irreducible mechanism is mostly made of spare parts from the same organism.

Elsewhere in your OP you seem to think science believes something as complex as a cell appeared spontaneously, which shows that you don't understand the theory at all. You also find it strange that the earliest living things matched their environment. Does it puzzle you that your model cars match the moulds they come from?

Hello Bob.
Bob your arguments do not provide any basis for how life, any life started in the first place, nor do you give any examples of macro evolution.
No one is arguing the reality of micro evolution, the ability of life forms to adapt to environmental conditions.
Perhaps you could provide us with exactly what the very first life form on earth was.
Micro evolution is very well suited to Genesis.

Does it puzzle you that your model cars match the moulds they come from?
Not in the least. The moulds were conceived, designed and produced for a very specific task.
On the other hand, if any of these mould suddenly just appeared without any intelligent maker or designer I would be extremely surprised.
If I had a car that I was working on for example, and I needed say a front left pillar for a 67 Red Line Cougar and suddenly there was some kind of strange mini big bang in my shop, and all kinds of unexplained gasses twirled about for days on end and all of a sudden and right before my eyes these gasses began to take on heavier elemental forms and began to affix themselves together in such a manner as to eventually become an exact mould for that exact pillar, then yes I would be supremely amazed!

Come on Bob, you have to admit that when you look up in the great vast expanse at night and see all the amazing lights up there and consider that they are all (for the most part) suns that most likely have planets and moons around them. And when you consider all the various life form here on earth you must at times wonder if this whole evolution deal may be a wee bit unlikely.
I mean our brightest scientists can’t even cure the common cold. We keep on hearing about new discoveries right here for example on planet earth that forces us to rewrite our previous “facts†and we’re arrogant enough to have the great unclean populations of earth to believe we have it all figured out!

It astounds me how anyone can observe all this and even consider it is all the result of dumb, random, meaningless fluke luck. Bob get yourself a show box and tape it shut.
Put it in a closet, and once every year cut the tape and look inside. Do you even remotely believe you’ll ever see anything in the box?

OK when this theorised big bang happened was there any space for this material to expand into? Or did space and these infant elements just luckily come into existence together?
Were the laws already here or did they also luckily just happen to come into play right at the most convenient time? When did time come into play?
Do you think it’s possible that there were actually several separate random fluke senseless big bang type events?
Maybe space was first, then trillions of years later the laws of the universe came, and then this imagines big bang happened and space and time and laws were all here just waiting for the elements to show up?
What happened Bob?

Then another amazing random fluke dumb luck senseless event happened didn’t it Bob?
Life arose, and after this first simple life form arose more random senseless dumb luck events happened again and again and again and again – life just happened to arise in the exact spot that just happened to have life sustaining elements available, then just by fluke random dumb senseless chance, this first life form was able to reproduce, then even more dumb random senseless luck happened because this life just happened to be ingrained with a complicated code, a set of senseless meaningless dumb luck instructions for not just building itself, and reproducing itself, but this dumb stupid random fluke senseless complex code with no intelligent designer was encoded with instructions for all future generation of every life form we see today!!! What an amazing dumb luck fluke random coincidence Bob!

You know we can take all the most complex codes ever conceived by the absolute brightest scientists from all human history Bob, and put them all together and they can’t come even one grain of sand form all the grains of sand in the universe close to this code that you and your friends believe came from nothing but dumb, fluke, random, brainless luck.
It just doesn’t smell right Bob.

Remember the primordial soup that the evolutionist scientists used to tell us about Bob?
You know the soup that was just perfect for life to have begun in?
Ya, well we know that was never the conditions on the planet at the time you believe life first arose.
As a matter of fact the actual conditions were so violent and toxic that even your people are forced to admit made it impossible for anything to have lived let alone have been born in.
With all these amazing details, I find it astonishing that any intelligent people, (and I do believe you are intelligent Bob), can ever bring themselves to believe in it.

Anyway.
Been a pleasure my friend.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barbarian.

BTW, Behe recently admitted that irreducible complexity can evolve. He could hardly do otherwise; it's been directly observed.

Bacteriologist Barry Hall, studying the evolution of enzyme systems in bacterial cultures, discovered the unexpected evolution of an irreducibly complex new enzyme system.

OK you’re missing the point my friend.
I’m not arguing that these so called simple single cells can’t reproduce or survive.
I’m pointing out a fact that evolution says life evolves from lower forms to higher forms through a series of graduated transitional changes.
These “simple†cells show an extremely complex structure right from the start.
If we assume evolutionary transition to be fact, then these cells could not survive without all their parts intact and would not survive a transitional stage if even one of their parts were absent.
That is I.C. in a nutshell.

Let’s take the human heart for example.
Did the human heart suddenly evolve in its entire form? That would be counter intuitive to evolutionary thought.
However, if the human heart were missing any of its parts we could not survive.

If you take away your pulmonary valve for example, or one of your coronary arteries you’re dead.
So the thought behind E.C. is valid even today.
Take lungs for example, if they are not fully formed we die.
Lungs and hearts work together so these systems take the argument even deeper.

Take care Barbarian.

John Bronzesnake

 

[jwu]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html[/url]

Basically it breaks down to the information that a particular IC system can evolve in about 20.000 years in a population of one billion bacteria, and he also testified that a larger population can bring about this feature faster, in relation to its size.

Now, one billion bacteria is a small population of bacteria, and he was looking for one specific IC system and only allowed specific types of mutations to produce the result.
Given that there is an astronomically high number of bacteria on earth, this means that many thousands of IC systems evolve every second even if we accept the limitations that Behe imposed on the available mutation types.

So if you disagree then please explain why Behe himself came to the conclusion that IC systems can evolve.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello my friend.
Sorry but the way you posted your reply makes it a bit hard to comprehend.
I'll go for these questions...

Well, you cited Michael Behe, so i take it that you deem him to be an expert on the field of IC and their evolvability.

Look, I'm not a disciple of M.B. I simply quoted his I.C. idea and I agree with it in principle.
I agree that some structures are very complex when evolutionists at times try to make that they are “simple†Because it fits in with their beliefs.
Evolution would have us believe that the first life forms were basic and simple and evolved into more complex organisms in a graduated fashion.
However when we take a look at these so called simple life forms we see they are anything but simple.

As a matter of fact they are very complicated.
I.C. does not argue against evolution. I.C. states that these cells are designed in such a way that they have many interweaving components, and if one of these components were removed the entire cell would die. This is not an argument against evolution my friend and that’s not what I am saying either.
I do not believe there is any evidence of macro evolution.

What I am saying is if we believe in Darwinian evolution then these cells would have had to have evolved in stages in order to evolve all these separate interweaving components. If these cells were formed in whole, as they appear to have, with all these irreducibly complex working parts at one time, then evolution would have to be discarded because this would be tantamount to going from these single cells straight to fully formed humans with no intermediaries.

In other words these so called simple cells are so complex that if they were formed as they present themselves, fully intact with all their components through a biogenesis as evolution requires, then that would be such an amazing event that going immediately from that single cell to a fully functioning human being without any intermediary transitional steps would be no more equally astounding.
To sum up – if the first life forms are as complex as these supposed simple single cells are, then Darwinian evolution does not accommodate it, and we must concede in a creator.

So if you disagree then please explain why Behe himself came to the conclusion that IC systems can evolve

Again, you misunderstand my position here.
I agree that I.C. systems can evolve, but micro evolution not macro evolution.

Hope that makes my position clear for m you my friend.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that irreducible complexity is observed to evolve)

OK you’re missing the point my friend.
I’m not arguing that these so called simple single cells can’t reproduce or survive.

I don't think anyone thinks you did. What you seem to miss is that the evolution of traits, even irreducibly complex ones, is a fact.

I’m pointing out a fact that evolution says life evolves from lower forms to higher forms through a series of graduated transitional changes.

"Higher" and "lower" is meaningless in evolution. Sometimes, things get more complex and interesting. Sometimes they go the other way.

These “simple†cells show an extremely complex structure right from the start.

They are as highly evolved as you are. Both of you come from billions of years of evolution. They just went a different direction. You don't know what the first living things were like.

If we assume evolutionary transition to be fact,

And it's directly observed.

then these cells could not survive without all their parts intact

Of course, that's wrong. I don't know of an organism on Earth that couldn't lose something and still survive. Can you name me one?

and would not survive a transitional stage if even one of their parts were absent.

I know you want us to believe it, but as you see, your first premise is demonstrably wrong. Would you like to see why?

That is I.C. in a nutshell.

No. It's a bit more interesting than that. The argument is that if something today is irreducibly complex (that is you can't remove one part without making the existing function inoperative) then it could never have evolved. BTW, Behe, who invented the idea, now admits it can happen.

There are numerous ways it can happen, not the least of which is exaption, the use of an existing feature for something else. This has been observed in the bacterial flagellum, for example.

Let’s take the human heart for example.
Did the human heart suddenly evolve in its entire form? That would be counter intuitive to evolutionary thought.
However, if the human heart were missing any of its parts we could not survive.

We wouldn't do as well; we need a strong movement of oxygenated blood because of our large brains and pumped-up metabolism. However a less energetic organism with a smaller brain could do with a lesser flow. Our chordate ancestors did with nothing more than a thickened blood vessel. How it went from there is pretty interesting, and documented in genes:

Figure 8. Models for the heart specification network and chordate heart evolution. (A) Summary of the gene network controlling heart specification in Ciona. Mesp drives expression of Ets1/2 in all descendants of the B7.5 blastomeres. FGF signaling activates Ets1/2 in the rostral daughters, leading to the expression of FoxF and ultimately to the deployment of the heart differentiation cassette. (B) Summary diagram illustrating heart specification events on the cellular level. (C) Diagram illustrating a model of chordate heart evolution. According to this model, expansion of induction within a broad heart field led to the emergence of a dual heart phenotype (as illustrated experimentally through manipulation of Ets1/2 activation in Ciona embryos). In basal vertebrates, this transitional organ was patterned and modified to form two distinct chambers.

If you take away your pulmonary valve for example, or one of your coronary arteries you’re dead.
So the thought behind E.C. is valid even today.

They got you thinking about a human with a simpler heart. But that's not how it happened.

Take lungs for example, if they are not fully formed we die.

Many people live for long lives with reduced lungs. Not as well, but again, simpler organisms with less oxygen demand do just fine without our highly-functional lungs.

Would you like to see the evidence for the evolution lungs? The genes for that process are also known in some detail.

 

[Barbarian]

Come on Bob, you have to admit that when you look up in the great vast expanse at night and see all the amazing lights up there and consider that they are all (for the most part) suns that most likely have planets and moons around them. And when you consider all the various life form here on earth you must at times wonder if this whole evolution deal may be a wee bit unlikely.

If God is powerful enough to create that, what makes you think He's too weak to make life able to evolve over time? He's God. It's rather amazing to realize how great, but still.

I mean our brightest scientists can’t even cure the common cold. We keep on hearing about new discoveries right here for example on planet earth that forces us to rewrite our previous “facts†and we’re arrogant enough to have the great unclean populations of earth to believe we have it all figured out!

I'm thinking you're beating a strawman here. Scientists make a living precisely because we don't have it all figured out. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything.

It astounds me how anyone can observe all this and even consider it is all the result of dumb, random, meaningless fluke luck.

It astounds me that anyone thinks evolutionary theory says it is.

OK when this theorised big bang happened was there any space for this material to expand into? Or did space and these infant elements just luckily come into existence together?
Were the laws already here or did they also luckily just happen to come into play right at the most convenient time? When did time come into play?

Science can't say what was there before the big bang. There are other ways to know. Use them.

Then another amazing random fluke dumb luck senseless event happened didn’t it Bob?
Life arose, and after this first simple life form arose more random senseless dumb luck events

God says the Earth brought forth life. I'm inclined to agree. Chemistry and natural selection are not about luck. Time and chance happen to us all, but the smart money is on adaptation.

Remember the primordial soup that the evolutionist scientists used to tell us about Bob?
You know the soup that was just perfect for life to have begun in?
Ya, well we know that was never the conditions on the planet at the time you believe life first arose.

The reduced iron and banded iron formations make it clear that there were such environments. And since we now know that complex organic molecules like amino acids and peptides form abiotically, the point is moot. It happened. BTW, you've lost your focus. Try to stay with evolution.

As a matter of fact the actual conditions were so violent and toxic that even your people are forced to admit made it impossible for anything to have lived let alone have been born in.

Someone's misled you on that. Most scientists acknowledge the conditions on the early Earth were good for life.

With all these amazing details, I find it astonishing that any intelligent people, (and I do believe you are intelligent Bob), can ever bring themselves to believe in it.

There's a lot you need to catch up on about this. But let's just say for now that life began on Earth (Darwin just said God did it) and concentrate on the OP. We're talking about evolution, not the origin of life.

 

[jwu]

Look, I'm not a disciple of M.B. I simply quoted his I.C. idea and I agree with it in principle.
I agree that some structures are very complex when evolutionists at times try to make that they are “simple†Because it fits in with their beliefs.

I don't think they do this.

Evolution would have us believe that the first life forms were basic and simple and evolved into more complex organisms in a graduated fashion.
However when we take a look at these so called simple life forms we see they are anything but simple.

Ah, but here is the catch: Today's "simple" life forms are the product of billions of years of evolution too, and likely nothing like the "simple" life forms of 3.5 billion years ago. And given that even today's "complex" lifeforms passed through most of their generations on a single-cellular level, we can expect to find most of their complexity on that level.

As a matter of fact they are very complicated.
I.C. does not argue against evolution. I.C. states that these cells are designed in such a way that they have many interweaving components, and if one of these components were removed the entire cell would die. This is not an argument against evolution my friend and that’s not what I am saying either.

Then i totally miss your point. The whole point of IC - as understood by its prominent proponents - was to show something that supposedly could not evolve and to discredit evolution.

I do not believe there is any evidence of macro evolution.

That's a different subject altogether. What would you accept as evidence of macro evolution?

What I am saying is if we believe in Darwinian evolution then these cells would have had to have evolved in stages in order to evolve all these separate interweaving components. If these cells were formed in whole, as they appear to have, with all these irreducibly complex working parts at one time, then evolution would have to be discarded because this would be tantamount to going from these single cells straight to fully formed humans with no intermediaries.

In other words these so called simple cells are so complex that if they were formed as they present themselves, fully intact with all their components through a biogenesis as evolution requires, then that would be such an amazing event that going immediately from that single cell to a fully functioning human being without any intermediary transitional steps would be no more equally astounding.

That again sounds much like "IC systems cannot evolve, therefore evolution must be false" - but i cannot make any sense of it given that you stated yourself that IC systems can evolve...?

To sum up – if the first life forms are as complex as these supposed simple single cells are, then Darwinian evolution does not accommodate it, and we must concede in a creator.

That's a false dilemma here. If evolution were falsified, then we're back to "we don't know". A creator is not a valid default fallback position. It can be considered as an alternate hypothesis, but for that it needs positive confirming evidence to stand on its own merit, as well as a potential falsification.

Again, you misunderstand my position here.
I agree that I.C. systems can evolve, but micro evolution not macro evolution.

Well, ok - i wouldn't call it macroevolution (=evolution above the species level) either. I don't see the relevance to the subject at hand though.

 

[Bronzesnake]

I don't think anyone thinks you did. What you seem to miss is that the evolution of traits, even irreducibly complex ones, is a fact.

I never said it wasn’t.

"Higher" and "lower" is meaningless in evolution. Sometimes, things get more complex and interesting. Sometimes they go the other way.

Could you provide examples?

As far as I understand evolution says that single cells led to more complex life up to human beings.
They are as highly evolved as you are. Both of you come from billions of years of evolution. They just went a different direction. You don't know what the first living things were like.
Evolutionary text books state the first life forms were simple single cells, so I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this.

I’m specifically referring to these soc called simple single cells. Turns out they aren’t so simple after all, and that’s the point.

And it's directly observed.

Where? Please show me any examples of a series of graduated transitional fossils because some of your brightest scientists are telling us they do not exist.

Of course, that's wrong. I don't know of an organism on Earth that couldn't lose something and still survive. Can you name me one?

Sure can...molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella.

Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. Just to reiterate; an irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional.
Darwinian evolution has no explanation for these kind of machines barbarian.

D.E. has life forming gradually in a series of evolutionary steps; however these machines are extremely complex. Evolution is a fluke, random pointless process as we all know, and not goal-oriented, so if a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation, (which I believe is impossible and has never been seen), but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part which by itself would be non functional, would be completely useless and die.

There are numerous ways it can happen, not the least of which is exaption, the use of an existing feature for something else. This has been observed in the bacterial flagellum, for example.

What??!! No it has not Barbarian. It has been theorised. When faced with this bacterial flagellum I.C. example, evolutionists came up with a desperate theory as to how one of these extremely complex molecular machines could possibly have evolved in the Darwinian manner and the explanation was astonishing!

They call it “pre-adaptation†- pre-adaptation is the theory of formation of new parts for a new molecular machine (from currently existing parts that perform another function) before the machine is needed by the organism!!! This is not a Darwinian concept by the way, and it suggests that this random, fluke, dumb luck, pointless evolutionary process is goal orientated!
That strongly suggests pre knowledge and intelligence Barbarian.

Here are some evolutionist’s quotes to explain this desperate idea...

Sebastian Poggio, co-author of the study, stated, “[The pieces] were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function.â€

Wired Science writer, Brandon Keim, puts it this way: “The necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine . . . were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.†He also states,
“The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called “preadaptationâ€. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,†in which the build up of parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest . . . .

Barbarian, studies show that bacteria tend to lose genetic information that is not needed in their current environment so why would they suddenly change and go totally against evolution and “store†up a bank of useless parts to be used sometime in the future without any pre-knowledge, without any intelligent direction and all within the parameters of a system which is not goal orientated?
Just think about what a huge coincidence it is that all these random, dumb luck, pointless parts (sevral parts) all formed at different stages of this evolutionary process and for absolutely no reason, actually happen to all fit together and work together for a specific purpose...it boggles the mind!

Once we start down this road we have to be ready to rewrite the entire Darwinian Theory and come up with some kind of an explanation that shows how parts can be “created†and stored for a future task. I’m sure I don’t have to point out the extremely obvious problems with this line of thought.

We wouldn't do as well; we need a strong movement of oxygenated blood because of our large brains and pumped-up metabolism. However a less energetic organism with a smaller brain could do with a lesser flow. Our chordate ancestors did with nothing more than a thickened blood vessel. How it went from there is pretty interesting, and documented in genes:

That all sound very interesting Barbarian. But as with all macro evolutionary thought there are no real examples of human evolution to draw from, only theory.

They got you thinking about a human with a simpler heart. But that's not how it happened.

Now let’s be real here Barbarian. That’s how you “believe†it happened. Not how it actually happened.

Would you like to see the evidence for the evolution lungs? The genes for that process are also known in some detail.

Yes I would.

Take care Barbarian. Good to discuss these things with you brother.
John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that sometimes evolution makes things more complex, sometimes it makes them more simple)

Could you provide examples?

Sure. Crustaceans clearly evolved from polychaete annelid worms, by a process of tagmosis and increasing complexity and specialization of body segments and biramous appendages. (I'd be pleased to show you the evidence for this, in another thread, if you like)

And yet we have this evolving from crabs:
Once the larval, female Sacculina locates a suitable victim, it inserts a thin needle into a
seam in the crab's armor, injects a tiny clump of its own cells into the host and discards the
rest of its body entirely, losing more than 90% of its total mass. Now little more than a
protoplasmic blob, it begins to grow through the crab almost exactly like cancer, wrapping
fungus-like tendrils around organs, muscles and even the crab's eyes.
http://www.bogleech.com/bio-paracrust.html

Sacculina is a parasitic crustacean.

Would you like to see some others?

As far as I understand evolution says that single cells led to more complex life up to human beings.

As far as you understand. But that's what's holding you back.

Barbarian on modern bacteria:
They are as highly evolved as you are. Both of you come from billions of years of evolution. They just went a different direction. You don't know what the first living things were like.

Evolutionary text books state the first life forms were simple single cells, so I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this.

You've simply assumed the highly complex modern bacteria are like the first living things.

I'm specifically referring to these soc called simple single cells. Turns out they aren’t so simple after all, and that’s the point.

Not after a few billion years. We do know that multicellularity took a very, very long time to evolve, but the bacteria have been adding new features for much longer.

Barbarian observes:
And it's directly observed.

Where? Please show me any examples of a series of graduated transitional fossils because some of your brightest scientists are telling us they do not exist.

Like Stephen Gould? He's often quote-mined to "prove" he thought they didn't, but he wrote that they are abundant. And although he thought most evolution occurs during relatively brief periods, followed by long periods of stasis, he mentions some cases where gradual evolution occurred over a long period of time.

I'd be pleased to show you an example. If I can show you a continuous series of fossils, from very early and primitive to nearly modern and evolved, in which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species, would you acknowledge that it is a case of gradual evolution?

Barbarian observes:
Of course, that's wrong. I don't know of an organism on Earth that couldn't lose something and still survive. Can you name me one?

sure can...molecular machines such as the bacterial flagella.

Sorry, that's wrong. First, a flagellum is not an organism. Its a structure. Second, there are different levels of complexity in bacterial flagella, and some have more parts than others. So clearly that won't work for you.

Evolutionary pathways supported by the Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution (see: "The Flagellum Unspun and PBS/Nova Science's television production of Intelligent Design on Trial) have since been identified for the bacterial flagellum; thus, undermining Behe's argument.[37] In addition, the Type three secretion system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex in the way that the bacterial flagellum could have in fact evolved from the type three secretion system.[38][39]

Exaptation explains how systems with multiple parts can evolve through natural means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

Try again?

Molecular machines are considered to be irreducibly complex. Just to reiterate; an irreducibly complex machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional.
Darwinian evolution has no explanation for these kind of machines barbarian.

I'm afraid you've been misled about that. Even Behe now admits it can happen. And it's been directly observed to happen.

D.E. has life forming gradually in a series of evolutionary steps;

Sorry, not part of evolutionary theory. If you want to suppose God magically poofed life into existence instead of creating the Earth and then letting the Earth bring forth life (as He says in Genesis) it would make no difference to evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a fluke, random pointless process as we all know,

That's another huge misconception. Evolutionary theory doesn't say it's random.

so if a part of the machine would happen to form by random chance mutation, (which I believe is impossible and has never been seen), but the other parts of the machine were not formed at the same time, then the organism containing that individual part which by itself would be non functional, would be completely useless and die.

Ironically, genetic algorithms, programs built by engineers to copy natural selection, show you're very wrong. It turns out such evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems. God knew best, after all.

Barbarian observes:
There are numerous ways it can happen, not the least of which is exaption, the use of an existing feature for something else. This has been observed in the bacterial flagellum, for example.

What??!! No it has not Barbarian. It has been theorised.

Nope. Turns out that there are different forms of the flagellum, and even a "non-functional" flagellum that can't make the cell move, has been exapted to do something else. Precisely what Behe denied was possible. (to his credit, he's admitted that it is possible recently)

When faced with this bacterial flagellum I.C. example, evolutionists came up with a desperate theory as to how one of these extremely complex molecular machines could possibly have evolved in the Darwinian manner and the explanation was astonishing!

See above. There's genetic evidence for this also. I'll see if I can locate the paper for you.

They call it “pre-adaptation†- pre-adaptation is the theory of formation of new parts for a new molecular machine (from currently existing parts that perform another function) before the machine is needed by the organism!!! This is not a Darwinian concept by the way,

Darwin wrote about it in "The Origin of Species." But since evolutionary theory now includes mutations, punctuated equilibrium, and so on, it's no longer just what Darwin wrote. Like chemistry, where we still know atoms are a fact, even if Dalton didn't know everything about them, we know a lot more about evolution than Darwin did. But you're wrong about exaption not being a Darwinian idea.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3pUvMK ... on&f=false

and it suggests that this random, fluke, dumb luck, pointless evolutionary process is goal orientated!

But it's only your misconception about what evolutionary theory says. Learn about it, and you'll be more effective.

Here are some evolutionist’s quotes to explain this desperate idea...
(discussions of exaption)

Would you like to see some examples of this?

Barbarian, studies show that bacteria tend to lose genetic information that is not needed in their current environment so why would they suddenly change and go totally against evolution and “store†up a bank of useless parts to be used sometime in the future without any pre-knowledge, without any intelligent direction and all within the parameters of a system which is not goal orientated?

In the case of the flagellum, it had a different function and then was adapted to a different one. Sometimes, it's just that the change is neutral or allometric, and only later became useful. The neck of the giraffe seems to be such a case. Would you like to learn about that?

Just think about what a huge coincidence it is that all these random, dumb luck, pointless parts (sevral parts) all formed at different stages of this evolutionary process and for absolutely no reason, actually happen to all fit together and work together for a specific purpose...it boggles the mind!

Of course, as you now surely realize, that is not what evolutionary theory says, and it's not what the evidence shows happening.

Once we start down this road we have to be ready to rewrite the entire Darwinian Theory and come up with some kind of an explanation that shows how parts can be “created†and stored for a future task. I’m sure I don’t have to point out the extremely obvious problems with this line of thought.

So you thought. But as you see, Darwin saw that possibility, and evidence has confirmed how exaption works.

Barbarian, regarding the possibility of less efficient hearts:
We wouldn't do as well; we need a strong movement of oxygenated blood because of our large brains and pumped-up metabolism. However a less energetic organism with a smaller brain could do with a lesser flow. Our chordate ancestors did with nothing more than a thickened blood vessel. How it went from there is pretty interesting, and documented in genes:

That all sound very interesting Barbarian.

And very well documented from several different kinds of evidence. Would you like to learn more about the way the structure of the heart changed in vertebrates?

(sudden change of subject)

But as with all macro evolutionary thought there are no real examples of human evolution to draw from, only theory.

Of course there are. We can, for example show gradual change in H. erectus over time, until is is impossible to say whether a particular specimen is H. sapiens or H. erectus. The transitionals are normally called "archaic H. sapiens, but the issue is really pointless. Some populations of H. erectus changed enough to produce modern humans.

Barbarian observes:
They got you thinking about a human with a simpler heart. But that's not how it happened.

Now let’s be real here Barbarian.

"Real" would be accepting the evidence. And the evidence shows how hearts evolved in chordates. Evidence counts, not imagination.

That’s how you “believe†it happened. Not how it actually happened.

The "e-word" so dreaded by YE creationists, again.

Barbarian suggests:
Would you like to see the evidence for the evolution lungs? The genes for that process are also known in some detail.

Yes I would.

I'll start a new thread for us.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barbarian.

Sure. Crustaceans clearly evolved from polychaete annelid worms, by a process of tagmosis and increasing complexity and specialization of body segments and biramous appendages. (I'd be pleased to show you the evidence for this, in another thread, if you like)

Barbarian. Either you are not aware, or you’re trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but this “clear evolution†you speak of is nothing more than a hypothesis.

Here is a quote from - http://www.jstor.org/ which is “J STORâ€
JSTORE is a not–for–profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive of over one thousand academic journals and other scholarly content. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship

“The phylogenetic relationships between the major arthropod groups are still far from being resolved. Phylogenetic analyses have usually relied on detailed morphological comparisons which are confounded by the extensive occurrence of convergence. We examine the available morphological evidence in the light of recent comparative developmental and molecular studies and suggest ways in which genetic-developmental information could help assess homology and overcome the problem of convergence. On the basis of such considerations we support the common origin of crustaceans and insects from a crustacean-like mandibulate ancestor. Focusing on the specific relationships between crustaceans, myriapods and insects, we suggest that insects could emerge from this crustacean-like ancestor independently from myriapods, and after the major crustacean radiations.â€

A typical example of the M.O. from all Darwinian evolution sources.
There are no real life examples to refer to so they are forced to “imagine†what transitional would look like if they actually existed.
Key words such as “could†and â€we suggest†are commonplace and usually overlooked by those who so desperately want this dead theory to be alive.
It’s almost like a 40 year old virgin staying awake on Christmas Eve so he can catch a glimpse of Santa.

Here’s more hypothesis gone wild...from http://www.sciencedirect.com
Abstract
"While arthropod phylogeny remains controversial, comparative studies of the genetic control of segmentation and of the nervous system have begun to throw light on how mandibulate arthropods (myriapods, crustaceans and insects) reached their current level of morphological and behavioural complexity. Insects and crustaceans show remarkable similarities in the construction of their brains, suggesting that their common ancestor had typically arthropod behaviour, while developmental genetic studies are consistent with this ancestor having had distinct head, trunk and tail regions. This conclusion contrasts with the influential view, drawn from comparative embryology and functional anatomy, that insects and crustaceans evolved independently from a simple worm-like organism, perhaps resembling an annelid."

We must be extremely vigilant whenever we read about some “new evidence†which “proves†some kind of transition, or Darwinian evolution at work.
It has been my exclusive experience that every one of these articles I have ever read is full of extremely important hot button words and phrases such as “suggestingâ€, and “remains controversial†and “This conclusion contrasts with the influential view†and “perhapsâ€
What we are seeing is a religious faith based belief system disguised as scientific fact.
I am not being facetious here. If these examples are real, the why use such ambiguous terms? These examples are typical and in essence, what they really say is we have no empirical evidence; we have no real life samples or examples, but if we did this is what we would like to see.

Let’s break down these examples line by line and see what we really have.
“The phylogenetic relationships between the major arthropod groups are still far from being resolved.
WE have no idea about the phylogenetic relationships between the major arthropod groups. We cannot come to any scientific conclusions; we just don’t know.

Phylogenetic analyses have usually relied on detailed morphological comparisons which are confounded by the extensive occurrence of convergence.
We tried to come up with a system which proved evolution through shared or similar traits which would then show a transition in action; however there were too many examples of similarity of structure which we cannot explain using evolutionary descent from a common ancestor, and so we became confounded.

We examine the available morphological evidence in the light of recent comparative developmental and molecular studies and suggest ways in which genetic-developmental information could help assess homology and overcome the problem of convergence.
We decided to ignore the problem of extensive occurrences of convergence and hope no one notices, then we could buffalo chip our way into suggesting that our evolutionary ideas were correct.

On the basis of such considerations we support the common origin of crustaceans and insects from a crustacean-like mandibulate ancestor.
Assuming unsuspecting people fell for the buffalo chip thingy, we come right out with our heads high and our chests puffed way out and proclaim that our wonky examples are solid and factual, then good trusting folks who take us at face value will post our real live evolutionary transitions on Christian forums all over the world, and our shell game will stay above water another day!

Focusing on the specific relationships between crustaceans, myriapods and insects, we suggest that insects could emerge from this crustacean-like ancestor independently from myriapods, and after the major crustacean radiations.â€
We continue to bamboozle the masses with our fake real evolutionary examples, and all we need to do is merely “suggest†the next piece of buffalo chips are factual and they’ll eat it up!
Ain’t life grand Cletus!??
I know it’s a wee bit cheeky but I am making a valid point.
Just be extremely aware of exactly what words and phrases are being used.

And yet we have this evolving from crabs:
Once the larval, female Sacculina locates a suitable victim, it inserts a thin needle into a
seam in the crab's armor, injects a tiny clump of its own cells into the host and discards the
rest of its body entirely, losing more than 90% of its total mass. Now little more than a
protoplasmic blob, it begins to grow through the crab almost exactly like cancer, wrapping
fungus-like tendrils around organs, muscles and even the crab's eyes.

Please tell me you’re joking? You do not honestly believe this is any kind of evolution right?

Bronzesnake Wrote: Evolutionary text books state the first life forms were simple single cells, so I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this.

You've simply assumed the highly complex modern bacteria are like the first living things.

Really? Perhaps you could show me the actual first cells then because I got that info off evolutionary doctrine. Please do...what did the first cells look like?

Not after a few billion years. We do know that multicellularity took a very, very long time to evolve, but the bacteria have been adding new features for much longer.
Barbarian observes:
And it's directly observed.

First of all please show me how you know this...you know; these billions of years.
You state that “we do know multicellularity ( whatever that means) took a very, very long time to evolve."
OK, I’ll take your word for it. Now could you please show me proof and not simply “I say soâ€

Like Stephen Gould? He's often quote-mined to "prove" he thought they didn't, but he wrote that they are abundant. And although he thought most evolution occurs during relatively brief periods, followed by long periods of stasis, he mentions some cases where gradual evolution occurred over a long period of time.

You know anytime Gould is quoted, evolutionists whip out this “quote mine†bullet as though the very term somehow proves Gould didn’t say the exact precise words...I got news for you Steven J Gould said those exact words and he meant them.
Here is exactly what he said and I will include the source so I’m not accused of making it up...
Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

There it is in all its monstrous glory Barbarian, now deal with it.
Gould was honest enough and had the cahoochies to say it out loud for everyone to hear and for evolutionists to lament. There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere!
This is from one of the world’s greatest evolutionary scientific minds my friends!
The Darwinian theory is dead, when will the evolution groupies realise that the show is long over....the band was mouth syncing...it’s time to take off the old blue jeans with the leather patches and peace signs...it’s time to fold up the tents and pick up the garbage because Yasgur’s gonna start ploughing the field at 6am!

I’m not saying Gould was a creationist either, so don’t bother with that straw man rebuttal.
He simply realised that the Darwin model was dead wrong and instead of even considering a creator, Gould took the easy way out and came up with an even more ridiculous model of his own Punctuated Equilibrium. Ya, right!
Here’s how it goes. Darwinian evolution happened so slowly and over such long time periods that we couldn’t actually observe it in the fossils...Pfft.
No what actually for real and for sure this time happened I pinky swear, was that the changes happened so fast that we can’t observe them in the fossils or life!!!??? What the??!! :crazy This is not science it’s blind religious faith that should make even the most devout Christian blush!

I'd be pleased to show you an example. If I can show you a continuous series of fossils, from very early and primitive to nearly modern and evolved, in which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species, would you acknowledge that it is a case of gradual evolution?

That all depends on what you mean by "which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal speciesconsider macro evolution to be." and it has to be macro not micro - oh and I want actual photos, not some artists conception of some evolutionits' pipe dream.
Let’s have it then.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, that's wrong. I don't know of an organism on Earth that couldn't lose something and still survive. Can you name me one? Sorry, that's wrong. First, a flagellum is not an organism. Its a structure. Second, there are different levels of complexity in bacterial flagella, and some have more parts than others. So clearly that won't work for you

I gave you an example of I.C.
But ok, you can’t deal with that example then I’ll give you an easier one.
The eye. Take away any part of the eye and it’s blind and useless. I.C. at it’s filthy worst my friend!

Evolutionary pathways supported by the Theory of Natural Selection and Evolution (see: "The Flagellum Unspun and PBS/Nova Science's television production of Intelligent Design on Trial) have since been identified for the bacterial flagellum; thus, undermining Behe's argument.[37] In addition, the Type three secretion system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex in the way that the bacterial flagellum could have in fact evolved from the type three secretion system.

OK for the kazillionth time. I never said a life form, or a structure that is I.C. could not micro evolve.
For the last time I SAID IT CAN’T FUNCTION IF YOU TAKE ONE OF IT’S COMPONANTS AWAY.
Is that clear enough?

While we’re at it did you notice the hot button key words?
"appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is much less likely to be irreducibly complex in the way that the bacterial flagellum could have in fact evolved from the type three secretion system."
Can't you see what's going on here Barbarian? Thes are not real examples. They are hypothesising about what "could be" this is exactly why I stopped wasteing my time believing in this dreamed up macro theory brother.

Exaptation explains how systems with multiple parts can evolve through natural means.

Barbarian. I’m really getting tired of pointing these things out.
You take all these “hypothesised†explanations as though they were factual.
These are examples of how evolutionists “believe†things â€could†work. Not how they actually “do†work.
They theorise because they have never seen these things actually happening. This is my one main argument with this entire theory. The people who believe it don’t know how to discern fact from hypothesis. And the entire body of evidence used by macro evolutionary theory is exclusively hypothesis. Barbarian you’re an intelligent man, and i do believe you’re also an honest man.
I don’t see you as a person who is purposefully being disingenuous. I know it’s difficult to shed ourselves of long held beliefs and habits. I know this because it was extremely difficult for me to let go. I forced myself to take a real hard honest look at exactly what was being presented as “fact and I was determined to discover the truth regardless of what that was and where it lead me.

I’m asking you as one man to another to take a break from posting and go out and look at the evidence with a completely open mind. Force yourself to look at both sides. I know that if you do this you will be freed from the shackles of atheistic dogma.

I’m not going to respond to anymore of this post and I won’t reply to any further posts you make until you’ve had the time to be honest and find the real truth.

Take care brother, and may God bless you with the wisdom, strength and patience to find the truth.

Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

“The phylogenetic relationships between the major arthropod groups are still far from being resolved.

For many of them. However, this is not about relationships between arthropod groups, but rather from where arthropods came in the first place.

Comparative Analysis of Hox Gene Expression in the Polychaete Chaetopterus: Implications for the Evolution of Body Plan Regionalization1

Steven Q. Irvine1 and Mark Q. Martindale2,2
1 Department of Cellular, Molecular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, P.O. Box
The Hox genes are widely regarded as candidates for involvement in major evolutionary changes in body plan organization. We examine Hox gene expression data for several taxa, in relation to recent work on the polychaete annelid Chaetopterus. The work in Chaetopterus shows the basic conservation of colinearity of anterior expression boundaries seen in other groups. It also reveals novel patterns including early expression in the larval growth zone and later formation of posterior boundaries that correlate with morphological transitions in the polychaete body plan. The polychaete gene expression pattern is compared with those of Hox gene homologs in other taxa to reveal differences that represent evolutionary changes in Hox gene regulation between lineages. Correlations between Hox gene expression differences and morphological differences are examined, focussing on a number of cases in which posterior Hox gene expression boundaries correlate with morphological transitions. Differential regulation of these posterior expression boundaries is proposed as a possible mechanism for changes body plan regionalization.

There are no real life examples to refer to so they are forced to “imagine†what transitional would look like if they actually existed.

Anomalocaris, for example, has both segmented legs and lobopods, putting it precisely intermediate between annelids and arthropods. A number of living annelids have biramous appendages like those of primitive arthropods.

"While arthropod phylogeny remains controversial, comparative studies of the genetic control of segmentation and of the nervous system have begun to throw light on how mandibulate arthropods (myriapods, crustaceans and insects) reached their current level of morphological and behavioural complexity.

Yes, studies on developmental genes have shown a clear connection.

Insects and crustaceans show remarkable similarities in the construction of their brains, suggesting that their common ancestor had typically arthropod behaviour, while developmental genetic studies are consistent with this ancestor having had distinct head, trunk and tail regions.

You would have to understand homobox genes to get this.

This conclusion contrasts with the influential view, drawn from comparative embryology and functional anatomy, that insects and crustaceans evolved independently from a simple worm-like organism, perhaps resembling an annelid."

Hmm... hasn't been the prevailing view for some time. How old is this source of yours?

We must be extremely vigilant whenever we read about some “new evidence†which “proves†some kind of transition, or Darwinian evolution at work.
It has been my exclusive experience that every one of these articles I have ever read is full of extremely important hot button words and phrases such as “suggestingâ€, and “remains controversial†and “This conclusion contrasts with the influential view†and “perhapsâ€
What we are seeing is a religious faith based belief system disguised as scientific fact.

Here's a way to test that. Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's faith. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

I am not being facetious here. If these examples are real, the why use such ambiguous terms?

You'll see that in chemistry and physics, too. It's the way they do it. Since their findings are in probabilities, it makes sense. Absolute certainty is not part of science.

These examples are typical and in essence, what they really say is we have no empirical evidence;

If you think so, you have been badly misled. As you see above, the articles base their conclusion on empirical evidence and nothing more.

And yet we have this evolving from crabs:
Once the larval, female Sacculina locates a suitable victim, it inserts a thin needle into a
seam in the crab's armor, injects a tiny clump of its own cells into the host and discards the
rest of its body entirely, losing more than 90% of its total mass. Now little more than a
protoplasmic blob, it begins to grow through the crab almost exactly like cancer, wrapping
fungus-like tendrils around organs, muscles and even the crab's eyes.

Please tell me you’re joking? You do not honestly believe this is any kind of evolution right?

The organism is unquestionably a crustacean. It has a relatively normal larval form, but it has evolved a parasitic way of life that is about as simple as it can be. And yet it evolved from very complicated arthropods.

Evolutionary text books state the first life forms were simple single cells, so I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this.

Barbarian observes:
You've simply assumed the highly complex modern bacteria are like the first living things.

Really?

Yes. We really don't know what the first cellular life was like, or what preceded it. You've just assumed.

Perhaps you could show me the actual first cells then because I got that info off evolutionary doctrine.

Nope. Nothing in evolutionary theory addresses the origin of life. You've been misled about that.

Barbarian observes:
Not after a few billion years. We do know that multicellularity took a very, very long time to evolve, but the bacteria have been adding new features for much longer.

Barbarian regarding the evolution of irreducible complexity:
And it's directly observed.

First of all please show me how you know this...you know; these billions of years.

Physics. Ernest Rutherford first discovered that there were rocks billions of years old, by measuring radioactive decay.

You state that “we do know multicellularity ( whatever that means) took a very, very long time to evolve."
OK, I’ll take your word for it. Now could you please show me proof and not simply “I say soâ€

For billions of years of rock, all we see are unicellular fossils.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Lif ... olites.htm

Barbarian observes:
Like Stephen Gould? He's often quote-mined to "prove" he thought they didn't, but he wrote that they are abundant. And although he thought most evolution occurs during relatively brief periods, followed by long periods of stasis, he mentions some cases where gradual evolution occurred over a long period of time.

You know anytime Gould is quoted, evolutionists whip out this “quote mine†bullet as though the very term somehow proves Gould didn’t say the exact precise words...I got news for you Steven J Gould said those exact words and he meant them.

But he didn't mean what you were told he meant...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

There it is in all its monstrous glory Barbarian, now deal with it.

Surprise. I read the entire original article from which your quotemined snipped came, so I know what was deleted. Be honest now; you didn't read the article, did you? You just borrowed that from one of those quote mine sources, or you'd know better. Darwin, BTW, also says that there are examples of slow and gradual evolution.

Gould was honest enough and had the cahoochies to say it out loud for everyone to hear and for evolutionists to lament. There are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere!

That's not what he said, is it? He said that gradual transitions are extremely rare. But he never said there weren't any. You posted that yourself. In fact, he mentions (among others) horses as an example of such gradual evolution.

The Darwinian theory is dead, when will the evolution groupies realise that the show is long over....the band was mouth syncing...it’s time to take off the old blue jeans with the leather patches and peace signs...it’s time to fold up the tents and pick up the garbage because Yasgur’s gonna start ploughing the field at 6am!

As you see, you've been badly misled about what the theory says, the evidence for it, and of course, those doctored quotes. A lot of people have declared evolutionary theory dead. Most of them are now dead.

He simply realised that the Darwin model was dead wrong and instead of even considering a creator, Gould took the easy way out and came up with an even more ridiculous model of his own Punctuated Equilibrium. Ya, right!

Wrong again. Gould considered himself a Darwinist, and his book of essays Ever Since Darwin makes it very clear. And he once speculated that maybe the reason intelligence evolved was that Someone wanted to share it all. You might want to learn about him by reading what he wrote.

Here’s how it goes. Darwinian evolution happened so slowly and over such long time periods that we couldn’t actually observe it in the fossils...Pfft.

But we can. I offered to show you. But you seem to have backed away from it, below.

No what actually for real and for sure this time happened I pinky swear, was that the changes happened so fast that we can’t observe them in the fossils or life!!!???

You think that's what punctuated equilibrium says? No wonder you don't like it.

What the??!! :crazy This is not science it’s blind religious faith that should make even the most devout Christian blush!

Did the guys who sold you that stuff claim to be Christians?

Barbarian suggests:
I'd be pleased to show you an example. If I can show you a continuous series of fossils, from very early and primitive to nearly modern and evolved, in which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species, would you acknowledge that it is a case of gradual evolution?

That all depends on what you mean by "which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species consider macro evolution to be."

Easy. If you object to the degree of change from one to another, I will have to show you that much variation in a single species. Agreed, or not?

and it has to be macro not micro

So when we get to the end of the series, the differences between first and last must be greater than we can see in any mammalian species. Agreed?

oh and I want actual photos, not some artists conception of some evolutionits' pipe dream.

Photographs of actual fossils then. Agreed?

Let’s have it then.

Clarify what you mean. Agree with my terms, or propose your own, so long as they are consistent with evolutionary theory. We don't want to be trying to show something the theory doesn't predict, um?

Barbarian observes:
Of course, that's wrong. I don't know of an organism on Earth that couldn't lose something and still survive. Can you name me one? Sorry, that's wrong. First, a flagellum is not an organism. Its a structure. Second, there are different levels of complexity in bacterial flagella, and some have more parts than others. So clearly that won't work for you

I gave you an example of I.C.

Since there are a number of different examples of flagella, and they differ in complexity, the bacterial flagellum, by definition, can't be irreducibly complex.

But ok, you can’t deal with that example then I’ll give you an easier one.
The eye. Take away any part of the eye and it’s blind and useless.

Hmm... lose the iris. Still works, although not nearly as well in bright light. Lose the cones. Still works with black and white vision. Lose the lens and it still works although it doesn't focus as well. So no, that doesn't work, either.

I.C. at it’s filthy worst my friend!

Sorry. Try again?

OK for the kazillionth time. I never said a life form, or a structure that is I.C. could not micro evolve.
For the last time I SAID IT CAN’T FUNCTION IF YOU TAKE ONE OF IT’S COMPONANTS AWAY.
Is that clear enough?

Remove a few components from the bacterial flagellum, and you have the Type IV secretory apparatus. And it works fine.

And the entire body of evidence used by macro evolutionary theory is exclusively hypothesis.

If you think so, you don't know what the words mean. Which is not unusual Many people aren't aware that a hypothesis is what a theory is before there is evidence for it. As you see, there is a huge body of evidence for evolution, which is why scientists accept it.

I know it’s difficult to shed ourselves of long held beliefs and habits. I know this because it was extremely difficult for me to let go. I forced myself to take a real hard honest look at exactly what was being presented as “fact and I was determined to discover the truth regardless of what that was and where it lead me.

You're going through another of those crises. A lot of the things you were told about evolution aren't true, as you can see from this conversation. Hang on, we've got a long way to go.

I’m asking you as one man to another to take a break from posting and go out and look at the evidence with a completely open mind. Force yourself to look at both sides. I know that if you do this you will be freed from the shackles of atheistic dogma.

Since evolutionary theory was founded by theists, that seems like an odd thing for you to believe. Wouldn't it be better to accept the evidence as it is? Evolution is not in any way at odds with God. And the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is manifestly at odds with God's word. Let Him be God and do it His way.

I’m not going to respond to anymore of this post and I won’t reply to any further posts you make until you’ve had the time to be honest and find the real truth.

Sorry it didn't work out better for you.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barbarian

Sorry it didn't work out better for you.

I am truly sorry for you brother.

That kind of shallow inferred victory is all you've got.
Any unbiased observer will see that evolutionists are clinging onto hopeless, trivial arguments that focus not on any empirical examples of a series of graduated transitional fossils, but rather the evolutionists are forced to take the debate into areas which rely exclusively on "what ifs" Your entire body of evidence for macro evolution is based exclusively on examples of micro evolution which are used as though they "could" lead to macro evolution, and therefore they somehow do. Why do you suppose there are never any discussions around actual photos of any series of graduated transitional fossils Barbarian?

I mean honestly! If there are in fact all these examples of series of graduated transitional why have they never been photographed and documented?
Why are we debating exclusively about hypothetical arguments where evolutionists have dragged the debate as far away from the awful reality of the situation? If I were still an evolutionists Barbarian, I would not be arguing my point via hypothetical mechanisms which theoretically could explain away some of the most devastating problems the theory faces.
I would keep away from that kind of debate because it really shows that evolution is in deep, deep trouble; it’s a shell game, and a ponzy scam.
Instead of continually asking me if I want to see these imagined series of transitional, just shut all of us creationists up and show them dude!

The very best I’ve ever seen from your camp are photos or illustrations of partial fossils, and the remainder of the actual real photos are embellished by artist’s conceptions of what the remainder of the fossil “could†have looked like in order for it to fit into your theory?

Darwin himself knew that if his ideas were true the ground would be chock full of millions of examples of series of transitional, and yet we creationists keep trying to educate those evolutionists who simply cannot grasp this reality, and some of your own best people know the sad truth THEY DO NOT EXIST.
If they did every newspaper and magazine on the planet, and every National Scamographic would be shoving them in our faces, but they don’t because they can’t because they DO NOT EXSITI brother.

If you had even the slightest grasp on macro evolution you would realise this is a series problem as Steven J Gould and other honest and informed scientists do.
I’m no longer left wondering whether you were being purposefully blind to such harsh realities or you were simply out of your element in regards to the seriousness of this problem.
You continue to make grandiose statements referring to some "solid" empirical lineages which you believe represent a series of gradual transitional macro evolutionary fossils, then you complete your thought by asking "would you like to see them?" or "would you like to learn more" but this solid evidence is never posted Barbarian.

I actually began to feel sorry for you because it became painfully obvious that you were struggling with even the basic elements surrounding a theory that you place such blind, religious faith in. It became uncomfortable to read your posts because they were lacking in basic knowledge of Darwinian evolution.
I was actually also surprised that Bob referred to you as a person who had a solid understanding of the theory, because Bob comes across as honest and intelligent, and is more than willing to admit when he’s out of his element. And so when Bob referred me to your expertise I was actually excited and looking forward to giving you a chance to engage in a fact based debate, however it has been somewhat of a letdown.

I honestly do pray that you will have somehow find the inner strength to take me up on my challenge even if only behind the scenes, so as not to make it look as though you might be actually interested in the truth rather than Darwin’s idea of the truth and stop yourself from responding with more immature remarks such as “Sorry it didn't work out better for youâ€

In any case, I am glad to continue in this debate if you wish.
Let’s go! Bring it on Ace!

I’m just off to bed brother so I will reply to all of your posts in the morning.

Take care my friend.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

I am truly sorry for you brother. That kind of shallow inferred victory is all you've got.

You shouldn't care so much about "winning." That's not what this is about.

Any unbiased observer will see that evolutionists are clinging onto hopeless, trivial arguments that focus not on any empirical examples of a series of graduated transitional fossils, but rather the evolutionists are forced to take the debate into areas which rely exclusively on "what ifs" Your entire body of evidence for macro evolution is based exclusively on examples of micro evolution which are used as though they "could" lead to macro evolution, and therefore they somehow do. Why do you suppose there are never any discussions around actual photos of any series of graduated transitional fossils Barbarian?

I offered to show you such a series, but for some reason, you put all sorts of conditions on it. I asked you to clarify what you meant by those conditions, and I'll be pleased to show you when you do that.

I mean honestly! If there are in fact all these examples of series of graduated transitional why have they never been photographed and documented?

That's the point; they have. As soon as you either agree to my understanding of your demands, or you clarify what you meant, you will see them.

If I were still an evolutionists Barbarian,

If you were ever an "evolutionist", you would know what the theory says. But as you see, you really don't know what it is.

Instead of continually asking me if I want to see these imagined series of transitional, just shut all of us creationists up and show them dude!

You made a series of demands. I asked you to either accept my understanding of those or clarify what you meant, if I misunderstood. Do that, and I'll show you what you're asking for.

The very best I’ve ever seen from your camp are photos or illustrations of partial fossils, and the remainder of the actual real photos are embellished by artist’s conceptions of what the remainder of the fossil “could†have looked like in order for it to fit into your theory?

It must have been a shock to see that the supposed "gorilla-like" jaw of A. afarensis was far more like the jaw of a human.

Darwin himself knew that if his ideas were true the ground would be chock full of millions of examples of series of transitional,

We can test that idea. Name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you an organism that fits. The more important point is that we only find such transitionals between such groups. Nothing that doesn't fit the theory. This is why it is accepted by scientists.

If you had even the slightest grasp on macro evolution you would realise this is a series problem as Steven J Gould and other honest and informed scientists do.

As you learned, Gould claims that transitionals are "abundant." You were misled on that, unfortunately.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

You continue to make grandiose statements referring to some "solid" empirical lineages which you believe represent a series of gradual transitional macro evolutionary fossils, then you complete your thought by asking "would you like to see them?" or "would you like to learn more" but this solid evidence is never posted Barbarian.

You made some vague demands about them. Either tell me my understanding of what you want to see is correct, or clarify what you want. Then I'll see what I can do to make that happen for you. I'm beginning to suspect the vagueness was to avoid the issue.

I actually began to feel sorry for you because it became painfully obvious that you were struggling with even the basic elements surrounding a theory that you place such blind, religious faith in. It became uncomfortable to read your posts because they were lacking in basic knowledge of Darwinian evolution.

If you'll go back over the conversation, you'll find numerous points where you told us about supposed elements of evolutionary theory that aren't part of it at all. And you seemed surprised to learn about other parts of it.

I was actually also surprised that Bob referred to you as a person who had a solid understanding of the theory, because Bob comes across as honest and intelligent, and is more than willing to admit when he’s out of his element.

I'm a biologist, and I've spent nearly 50 years studying biology. How do you think I know about all those bits of information?

And so when Bob referred me to your expertise I was actually excited and looking forward to giving you a chance to engage in a fact based debate, however it has been somewhat of a letdown.

A lot of earnest young creationists, armed with edited quotes from material they haven't read, look forward to educating scientists, only to be frustrated and disappointed when it doesn't work out.

I honestly do pray that you will have somehow find the inner strength to take me up on my challenge even if only behind the scenes, so as not to make it look as though you might be actually interested in the truth rather than Darwin’s idea of the truth and stop yourself from responding with more immature remarks such as “Sorry it didn't work out better for youâ€

You apparently decided to end the conversation, for reasons you didn't make clear. I was sorry, and I'm glad you've decided to come back. Would you now either confirm that I'm correct in my understanding of your demands for transitional fossils, or clarify what you mean?

Here's what you demanded, with my understanding of what you want. If it's right, say so. If not, clarify, and we'll get started:

Barbarian suggests:
I'd be pleased to show you an example. If I can show you a continuous series of fossils, from very early and primitive to nearly modern and evolved, in which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species, would you acknowledge that it is a case of gradual evolution?

That all depends on what you mean by "which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species consider macro evolution to be."

Easy. If you object to the degree of change from one to another, I will have to show you that much variation in a single species. Agreed, or not?

and it has to be macro not micro

So when we get to the end of the series, the differences between first and last must be greater than we can see in any mammalian species. Agreed?

oh and I want actual photos, not some artists conception of some evolutionits' pipe dream.

Photographs of actual fossils then. Agreed?

Clarify what you mean. Agree with my terms, or propose your own, so long as they are consistent with evolutionary theory. We don't want to be trying to show something the theory doesn't predict, um?