Flat Earth Society

---

Ah, thor, how comfortable it must be to have a brain so impervious. The rest of us can only wonder how a brain can actually get like that, and shudder.

Do you have an intelligent comment to make concerning my post, or are you just here for the slander?

I and others have already given intelligent comments, but you don't understand them, or even try to understand them.

I understand them and intelligently reject them as irrelevant to the issue at hand. You want to talk about mosquitos in subways, but that does not come anywhere close to explaining evolution as it occurred over the past several thousand years. It doesn't even explain how the mosquito got here to begin with. I'd settle for that, believe it or not. But if you could explain that, I'm sure you already would have.

You said "How come no animal or other form of life has been discovered while in the process of evolving?". I gave you two counter-examples disproving the assertion within your question, including one carried out under observation in the laboratory, and pointed you to some others. Cider gave you another. Then after all that, you say "you still haven't found anything in the process of evolving". You either don't understand anything, or you simply pretend to yourself that anything that challenges any of your ideas doesn't exist. I suspect the latter, but it's not a pretty sight.

Niether you, nor anybody, has shown an example of, per my example, a fish growing legs. No fossils have ever been found of any in-between stages for any creature. Everything was always fully functional! One day there were no legs...the next day they were there and working. No in-between steps where new genetic material was introduced...now half-grown legs, for example. You come up with an example or two concerning natural selection, where we have a little genetic drifting and no new genes being introduced, and you call it evolution. Genetic drifting will never account for a new species requiring new genetic information. It's like throwing a rock into the water on the beach and expecting the resultant ripples to drown the city of Tokyo on the other side of the world. It's rediculous. And to see for yourself how rediculous, start delving into exactly what must happen for genetic drifting to account for the creation of new species on the scale of, say, a bird becoming a duck (or the other way around). Go ahead. Try it. You will begin to see that it is not something that could possibly happen overnight. There would be in-between stages where the evolution was not complete, if things are as you say they are. But no evidence of any such thing is ever found. EVER!!! In addition to that, how would this extremely complex drifting propagate itself? It would have to simultaneously happen in both male and female of the species in order to propagate itself. Figure the odds of that happening...you'd more likely turn over a rock and find that a wrist-watch had assembled itself due to random events. Preposterous. Now factor into those odds the necessity of this happening for every single species ever discovered. Ludicrous. Open up your eyes and mind, for they are both closed.

You asked for examples of the process of evolution. You got them. Now you say the process of evolution means a fish growing legs overnight. It doesn't. (Though if you catch some tadpoles and keep them and feed them, you will be able to observe yourself a fishy creature with gills growing legs over quite a short space of time.)I've already explained that substantial evolution generally takes place in small populations or sub-populations (normally under stressed conditions). Since most bodies don't fossilise, the chances of seeing this in the fossil record are miniscule. But the formation of new genes is quite easily seen - for example in the development of antibiotic resistance. Until penicillin was discovered half a century ago, bacteria had no use for β-lactamases - now genes producing them are ubiquitous. Genes for resistance to many other antibiotics have arisen even more quickly.

Originally Posted By: thorNiether you, nor anybody, has shown an example of, per my example, a fish growing legs. No fossils have ever been found of any in-between stages for any creature. Everything was always fully functional! One day there were no legs...the next day they were there and working. No in-between steps where new genetic material was introduced...now half-grown legs, for example. There are several good transitional fossils of fish evolving into tetrapods: 1. Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw (Zhu and Ahlberg 2004). 2. A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, offering evidence that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998). 3. A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004). 4. Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish. 5. Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002). 6. Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.The transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales: 1. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993). 2. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994). 3. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993). 4. Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion. 5. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990). 6. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998). The whale's closest living relative is the hippopotamus. A fossil group known as anthracotheres links hippos with whales (Boisserie et al. 2005). The common ancestor of whales and hippos likely was a primitive artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal); ankle bones from the primitive whales Artiocetus and Rodhocetus show distinctive artiodactyl traits (Gingerich et al. 2001).  Originally Posted By: thorAnd to see for yourself how rediculous, start delving into exactly what must happen for genetic drifting to account for the creation of new species on the scale of, say, a bird becoming a duck (or the other way around). Go ahead. Try it. You will begin to see that it is not something that could possibly happen overnight. There would be in-between stages where the evolution was not complete, if things are as you say they are. But no evidence of any such thing is ever found. EVER!!!Meet Gansus, the oldest fossil found of a modern bird. It lived about 110 million years ago and was an aquatic bird. It had webbed feet and flight feathers but lacked clawed wingtips or hollow bones. It is believed to be the ancestor of all bird species today, if not a close relative.  Originally Posted By: thorFigure the odds of that happening...you'd more likely turn over a rock and find that a wrist-watch had assembled itself due to random events. Preposterous. Now factor into those odds the necessity of this happening for every single species ever discovered. Ludicrous.In 1972, Henry M. Morris wrote in his work The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution: Originally Posted By: Henry M. MorrisSuccessful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 1060, which is impossibly small. Morris's calculation assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly -- in 200/r generations using the assumptions of Morris's model. (The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate.)-----------------------------Now, about this Genetic Drift business, you really don't seem to understand it very well. First I'll give you the best summary of it that I've seen so far: Originally Posted By: An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed.If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error. If in a population of 1000 individuals the frequency of "a" is 0.5 in one generation, then it may by chance be 0.493 or 0.0505 in the next generation because of the chance production of a few more or less progeny of each genotype. In the second generation, there is another sampling error based on the new gene frequency, so the frequency of "a" may go from 0.0505 to 0.501 or back to 0.498. This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event. The final result of this random change in allele frequency is that the population eventually drifts to p=1 or p=0. After this point, no further change is possible; the population has become homozygous. A different population, isolated from the first, also undergoes this random genetic drift, but it may become homozygous for allele "A", whereas the first population has become homozygous for allele "a". As time goes on, isolated populations diverge from each other, each losing heterozygosity. The variation originally present within populations now appears as variation between populations. So from that, what can we discern? Originally Posted By: thorYou come up with an example or two concerning natural selection, where we have a little genetic drifting and no new genes being introduced, and you call it evolution. Genetic drifting will never account for a new species requiring new genetic information. It's like throwing a rock into the water on the beach and expecting the resultant ripples to drown the city of Tokyo on the other side of the world. It's rediculous. There is a review article in the journal Nature Reviews Genetics published back in 2004 called The Origin of New Genes, Glimpses From the Young and the Old. Its quite interesting, it summarizes dozens of research projects in laboratories around the world on different mechanisms by which new biological information arises through the process of evolution by natural selection. Originally Posted By: The Origin of New GenesMechanism: Exon shuffling: ectopic recombination of exons and domains from distinct genesExamples: fucosyltransferase, jingwei, Tre2Comments: ~19% of exons in eukaryotic genes have been formed by exon shufflingMechanism: Gene duplication: classic model of duplication with divergenceExamples: CGβ, Cid , RNASE1BComments: Many duplicates have probably evolved new functionsMechanism: Retroposition: new gene duplicates are created in new genomic positions by reverse transcription or other processesExamples: PGAM3, Pgk2, PMCHL1, PMCHL2, SphinxComments: 1% of human DNA is retroposed to new genomic locationsMechanism: Mobile element: a mobile element, also known as a transposable element (TE), sequence is directly recruited by host genesExamples: HLA-DR-1, human DAF, lungerkine mRNA, mNSC1 mRNAComments: Generates 4% of new exons in human protein-coding genesMechanism: Lateral gene transfer: a gene is laterally (horizontally) transmitted among organismsExamples: acytylneuraminate lysase, Escherichia coli mutU and mutSComments: Most often reported in prokaryotes and recently reported in plantsMechanism: Gene fusion/fission: two adjacent genes fuse into a single gene, or a single gene splits into two genesExamples: Fatty-acid synthesis enzymes, Kua-UEV, SdicComments: Involved in the formation of ~0.5% of prokaryotic genesMechanism: De novo origination: a coding region originates from a previously non-coding genomic regionExamples: AFGPs, BC1RNA, BC200RNAComments: Rare for whole gene origination; might not be rare for partial gene origination Originally Posted By: thorIn addition to that, how would this extremely complex drifting propagate itself? It would have to simultaneously happen in both male and female of the species in order to propagate itself.This shows quite a lack of understanding of genetic drift. The fluctuations in frequency occur in both females and males. It is not a rare occurrence, it ALWAYS happens. What makes the difference is if the fluctuation is propagated or if it is balanced out by the local population. Originally Posted By: thorOpen up your eyes and mind, for they are both closed.Is that open enough for you, big boy? I have countered every argument you have made in that post logically with scientific evidence. And what will your response be? Same as usual probably, you'll ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, or if you muster up all of your intellectual prowess, you may shake your head and say "Nuh uh!"

Originally Posted By: IneligibleYou asked for examples of the process of evolution. You got them. Now you say the process of evolution means a fish growing legs overnight. It doesn't.You're right...it doesn't happen overnight. So where are all the fossils of it happening at all (the in-between steps)??? Surely one or two must exist with all the evolving going on for thousands of years. (And no...I did not get any examples of this. Why not?) Quote:I've already explained that substantial evolution generally takes place in small populations or sub-populations (normally under stressed conditions). And where oh where is your hard evidence for this!???? Do you have any examples? WHY NOT? Where did you get these ideas? Why do you believe them not to be only theories, without any evidence to back them up? What is your definition for "substantial evolution"? Can you quote at least a few sources, or are these ideas all your own?

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: IneligibleYou asked for examples of the process of evolution. You got them. Now you say the process of evolution means a fish growing legs overnight. It doesn't.You're right...it doesn't happen overnight. So where are all the fossils of it happening at all (the in-between steps)??? Surely one or two must exist with all the evolving going on for thousands of years. (And no...I did not get any examples of this. Why not?)Try actually reading the post above yours.

Originally Posted By: CiderTry actually reading the post above yours. See, I told you. He ignores things that he doesn't like. He was really hoping that there weren't actually any arguments against his points.

It's quite frightening. I can only stress that most Christians aren't like this.Thanks for that post, bob - that was very interesting indeed. You've given some very interesting links, too - they've taught me a lot. Did you notice that reference to http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1167856 in one of your earlier links? It needs oligonucleotide substrates, so it doesn't start with simple enough systems yet, but it's very interesting.

Originally Posted By: Cider Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: IneligibleYou asked for examples of the process of evolution. You got them. Now you say the process of evolution means a fish growing legs overnight. It doesn't.You're right...it doesn't happen overnight. So where are all the fossils of it happening at all (the in-between steps)??? Surely one or two must exist with all the evolving going on for thousands of years. (And no...I did not get any examples of this. Why not?)Try actually reading the post above yours. I didn't see it. I generally don't read bob's posts as he rarely has anything significant to add. He posted some interesting things...but none of which answer the questions I posed. He threw up some examples of what he claims are "in-between" fossils...but, technically, all fossils are in between fossils until you go back to the beginning, or reach the end result. The distance between the two closest ones, in terms of genetics must still be quite staggering. bob avoids the whole subject, though, with snippets about how many random mutations it would take to make a "difference". We're not interested in what makes a difference...we're interested in specific changes along a certain path. How many random changes would it take for a bird without feathers to grow them, for example? Much more than bob makes allowances for. Take that number and compute the odds again...I think the numbers you get will be staggering. Then multiply those odds times the number of evolving species we have and the odds of all this happening becomes rediculous. (bob should study his statistics a little more closely.) bob seems to think he's playing with tinker-toys or an erector set...I assure him, and you, that it's more complicated than that.

A)  Quote:Life on this planet started with less complex creatures and advanced to more complex ones. Without a method of explaining how more complex genes were introduced (which natural selection does NOT explain), you have no logical explanation for the occurance of evolution...at all. Period. You and the others just don't get it. Ever hear of MUTATION? No, well, then here . And I'm not talking about artificial mutation either (i.e. done in a lab). Genes mutate all the time. The disease that I have, is one rather rare for my case. Normally, half of the chromosome should be missing. i.e. it should look like a 'v' or upside down. But it has 3 1/2 legs to it, resulting in something not normal for the type I have. Also, do you ever wonder why last years flu vaccines had to be made different? Hmmm...maybe it's because, oh, I don't know, the virus' DNA mutated...but that can't be.  Quote:The flu vaccine must be reformulated every year to keep up with the fast-evolving influenza virus, and... CBS News B)By "significant to add", do you mean something that agrees with what you think?C)Do those calculations, then. I think we're all anxious to see them.D)I wouldn't call us slanderous. You've ridiculed every one of us in the 3 posts you've replied in. I'd throw an insult at you, but that'd be a waste of my breath, and my time.

I think this thread and the other related ones demonstrates better than anything the problems that arise when credence is given to the scientist rather than the science.It's easy to find someone of science who's work reflects the outcomes we would like to see, that's nothing new. The problem has become, over the last several years, that we give them credence above the science behind the question at hand. Any crack-pot with PHD behind his name seems to give his views validity regardless of what the science of the subject says, be it to the contrary or even to the concordance. It's a dangerous trend that completely nullifies the advances that science should bring.If we're going to agree with whatever PHD we like best and ignore the process and it's results, of what use is science... it's not. At that point it's nothing more than demagoguery and faith. It become inimical to science. For better or worse science is a group effort, a community effort for continuity of results and reason. That wasn't to you LMC... just an observation.

Mutations would stand even less a chance for success in creating viable advances in life because they are random in nature. And in order for such mutation to be passed on, genetically, it would have to occur _in the exact pair (male/female) that decide to mate_. Otherwise, it never gets passed on. The odds, once again, are atronomical. And the proof, non-existant.
As for viruses, we've already discussed this. Some scientists don't even consider them alive, and they would therefor fail the test since they are not a life-form to begin with. But, even if you do choose to accept them as a form of life (figure the odds here), they still don't work because they require a living host body in order to reproduce. So, either way, it is not possible for life on this planet to have started out as form of virus...mutated or not.

Originally Posted By: thorAnd in order for such mutation to be passed on, genetically, it would have to occur in the exact pair (male/female) that decide to mate. Not if it's a dominate trait.

Originally Posted By: OldFolks Originally Posted By: thorAnd in order for such mutation to be passed on, genetically, it would have to occur in the exact pair (male/female) that decide to mate. Not if it's a dominate trait. What are the odds of a genetic mutation of the kind we speak of, generally requiring at least 200 genetic changes (at least according to bob's numbers) to make any "difference", having ALL 200 changes being dominant ones?

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: OldFolks Originally Posted By: thorAnd in order for such mutation to be passed on, genetically, it would have to occur in the exact pair (male/female) that decide to mate. Not if it's a dominate trait. What are the odds of a genetic mutation of the kind we speak of, generally requiring at least 200 genetic changes (at least according to bob's numbers) to make any "difference", having ALL 200 changes being dominant ones? My numbers? You should really read my posts properly, you might learn something. The numbers were presented as just an example and they were also given by Henry M. Morris, a Creationist fellow like yourself. Nobody said that atleast 200 genetic changes are required to make a difference.As for the odds, you do realise that all the changes don't happen in one big jump, right?

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

As for the odds, you do realise that all the changes don't happen in one big jump, right?

If they don't (and you have no proof one way or the other), then the odds of them being passed on grows even greater.