Propping up the theory of Evolution
rick_...@hotmail.com
of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
understand it more easily.
And further, arguments can be made to show better the strengths of
evolution and how it has shaped mankind.
For instance evolution is presently working towards improvements in
feet, with some members of the population having 6 toes. A 6 toed
person being more sure footed, and able to run faster, so that when
the great fire destroys all but the 6 toed ones, every person will
have 6 toes, just as today, every person has the same number of parts,
in the human body, and the same type of parts, in the human body. Of
which there are billions of them, thanks to these evolutionary
processes.
And its true that if a person with 6 toes, marries a person with a
cleft lip (another evolutionary advance in progress) the offspring
will be born with severe mental retardation, epilepsy, frontal
bossing, macrocephaly, hypertelorism, medial epicanthal fold, small
nose, depressed nasal bridge,. bifid tragus, lowset ears, high arched
palate, . Both the upper limbs have 6 fingers (post- axial
polydactyly). both the lower limbs have 6 toes (pre-
axial ,polydactyly). syndactyly of toes & fingers, left inguinal
hernia. and pallor otherwise the symptoms of a condition known as
Acrocallosal Syndrome.
But! undoubtedly, over time, evolution will find ways to blend these
into one congruent large deformity and then create various glands and
organs to compensate for it.
For although we all have the same parts today, in 6.6 billion trials,
trial and error requires trillions upon trillions of trials, before
serious advances can be made like a new organ, or a new gland, or a
new appendage.
Then once the proto appendage has begun to grow in some of the
population, the others will by the _very _nature of the process
itself, begin to empathize, and harmonize, with these new developments
and begin to grow them as well. And that is you see, how it is, that
6.6 billion people, have the exact same design, and there are not lots
of differences within the species, of design changes.
And those changes that do occur by nature, by random, say for instance
to the DNA, we call those birth defects and the person ends up with
severe mental retardation and or epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, Lou
Gehrig's disease, fibromyalgia, and this sort of thing. That is if the
enzymes which assist in the replication of DNA, when they proof read,
to ensure that the DNA is exactly duplicated, (because DNA that is not
exactly duplicated is bad, not good, leads to genetic disorders, not
improvements in the human genome as has been shown in 6.6 billion
trials) if the DNA is still not exactly duplicated, then random
variations and random selection processes will occur, which of course
lead to severe mental retardation epilepsy and or fibromyalgia and the
like and left alone the patient will die soon after birth.
And so even though, we know, that entropy, works from an organized
state, to a disorganized state, and never in reverse, evolution is
different. It works against the flow of entropy, and random events
will cause improvements and lead to very complex systems, such as the
design of the brain, the design of the eye, and this is because
really, our understanding of physics is wrong, and evolution proves,
that it is wrong, and entropy in fact, can go in reverse. If you throw
a broken plate into a scum filled pond we know now, that it will
become fine china, given enough time. And the process of evolution of
course takes trillions and trillions of years to work, but in the end,
you will have fine china, where once you just had broken dishes,
laying in a swamp.
And the same goes for your old computers. You should not throw them in
the dump,. because thrown in a scum filled pond, over time, they will
get a better operating system because you see _that, is the way, in
which evolution works.
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f55d59d2-4f5d-4f02...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> understand it more easily.
>
Mighty fine load of straw ye got there, what are you planning on makin' with
it?
DJT
Bob T.
> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> understand it more easily.
I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
further.
- Bob T.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> > understand it more easily.
>
> I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
> further.
>
> - Bob T.
>
Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
is the same throughout the entire species.
One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
be some variation in design.
But there is none.
And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
design?
And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
different in design. And then show where those differences are,
because there are none of those either.
Then perhaps you could show how what we call genetic defects, could in
any way shape or form, be seen as an improvement made by evolution.
When all the data we have suggests that if you stray, from the design,
such as with the genetic code, you will get deformities, and genetic
disease, rendering the person less suitable for his or her
environment, not better adapted to his or her environment.
So in order to change the human, you need to change the genetic code.
And changes to the genetic code, result in severe disabilities and
disease, because the human body is a complex interrelated system, and
it is common sense, that if two people with genetic defects have
children, they will pass those defects on to their children.
Yet we do still do not see any people out there with a different
design.
How is that?
raven1
>It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>understand it more easily.
Absolutely. It should be framed so that even you can understand it.
We'll get right on that.
Dan Luke
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
yet.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Yes, so I can teach it to properly to my children.
And so maybe you can help me with that and answer some questions like,
what would happen if the flipper babies took to the sea, would we have
sea people?
rick_...@hotmail.com
Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
physiology design differs within that group.
As a starting point for discussion.
Shane
rick_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>>> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>>> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>>> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>>> understand it more easily.
>>
>> I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
>> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
>> further.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>>
>
> Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> is the same throughout the entire species.
Perhpas you could explain why you believe this.
For a start, humans come in two basic varieties which vary
quite significantly in their parts, design and function.
Then there are those that have differences that are normally
referred to as racial differences, the epicantic fold, the
predominance of black hair in the oriental reces, skin
pigmentation etc.
Next we have the differences that affect individuals in
many/all populations, dwarfism, albinoism, Downs syndrome,
variation in height and other measuremnts and body/organ
shape--remember you said everyone has the exact same
parts--variation in hair colour and distribution, Sickle
cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, polydactylism, cojoined twins
that share limbs and/or organs....
Do I need to keep on going?
> One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> be some variation in design.
> But there is none.
Your argument is a smoking, ruin, just like your foot. Now
the question becomes one of whether you are man enough to
change your ideas to match reality, or whether you will
retreat furhter into fundamentalist dishonesty and deluded
ignorance.
My money is on option 2.
[...]
Shane
Mammals, not a species I realise, but it covers a whole swag
of species.
The females which normally make up 50% or more of a
population, have mammary glands that produce milk.
Physiologically this has all sorts of repercussions, that
even you in your ignorance are probably aware of. The fact
that many males have mammary glands also, but only in rare
cases do they produce milk is one which is readily
explainable by evolution, much less so by old school
creationism and even less so by Intelligent Design
creationism.
HTH.
Rupert Morrish
> On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>>> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>>> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>>> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>>> understand it more easily.
>> I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
>> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
>> further.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>>
>
> Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> is the same throughout the entire species.
>
> One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> be some variation in design.
> But there is none.
To understand the world, you must first be aware of the world.
How about a girl with four arms and four legs?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22715518-23109,00.html
Is that enough variation for you?
>
> And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
> found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
> population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
> design?
Well, it takes a while. We've been drinking milk into adulthood for
thousands of years, but still not everyone can digest lactose after infancy.
>
> And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
> processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
> different in design. And then show where those differences are,
> because there are none of those either.
Blue eyes. Probably as common as they are due to sexual selection.
>
> Then perhaps you could show how what we call genetic defects, could in
> any way shape or form, be seen as an improvement made by evolution.
Evolution doesn't do improvement. Evolution does adaptation to the
environment.
>
> When all the data we have suggests that if you stray, from the design,
> such as with the genetic code, you will get deformities, and genetic
> disease, rendering the person less suitable for his or her
> environment, not better adapted to his or her environment.
Most mutations are neutral. You're carrying a few dozen around with you.
>
> So in order to change the human, you need to change the genetic code.
> And changes to the genetic code, result in severe disabilities and
> disease, because the human body is a complex interrelated system, and
> it is common sense, that if two people with genetic defects have
> children, they will pass those defects on to their children.
> Yet we do still do not see any people out there with a different
> design.
>
> How is that?
Because you're not looking.
>
rick_...@hotmail.com
You are talking about adaptation, and I am talking about design.
I am not talking about making rabbits with pink hair, I am talking
about making rabbits that have instead of hair, something different.
I am talking about the design. For instance all humans have a
pituitary gland.
Where are the animals, that have a new or different type of gland,
within any species that differs from others in that species?
Where are the animals who have any different design in terms of their
physiology?
Their anatomy? The design differences within a species.
Anywhere in nature.
Does it not look like all species come from a mold?
And does that not mean then, that if there is one mold for a species,
then that mold must have been designed?
And in fact do we not see that if an animal strays from that mold, by
natural processes such as genetic deformities, then circumstances will
be such that that creature will be born with deformities, mental
retardation and or epilepsy or other deficiencies which make the
animal less suited for survival?
Have we ever seen any genetic defect, that resulted in some new organ
or gland or similar? Some new design?
>
> > One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> > be some variation in design.
> > But there is none.
>
> Your argument is a smoking, ruin, just like your foot. Now
> the question becomes one of whether you are man enough to
> change your ideas to match reality, or whether you will
> retreat furhter into fundamentalist dishonesty and deluded
> ignorance.
>
> My money is on option 2.
>
> [...]
I agree that adaptation is built into the design, and that the design
is flexible enough, so that genetic differences are possible which
will result in cultural differences, like different color sin or eyes
or hair, and that other differences can help the body harmonize with
its environment, but thats adaptation and flexibility of design.
I do not see anywhere, where design can be attributed to natural
selection.
And i don't see any examples of it in progress in nature where there
are differences in design in any species.
Every species has a mold.
Rupert Morrish
A useful mutation already fixed in 30% of the population is probably
only a few generations away from being fixed in 100% of the population.
So it's not easy to catch the transition.
However, here's an example of a sub-population evolving a new organ
because of a change in diet:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2663,n,n
>
Cj
You are embarrassing yourself in public again. Learn about evolution
before trying to discuss it.
Cj
Mark VandeWettering
Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
Mark
Cj
embarrassing if you had an education. Apparently you don't.
Cj
Shane
You wish. Please tell me why you consider any of the
examples I gave as adaptation rather than design. But if
that is too hard for you, just concentrate on one, any one
of them.
> I am not talking about making rabbits with pink hair, I am talking
> about making rabbits that have instead of hair, something different.
Rather like poodles that have hair rather than fur.
> I am talking about the design. For instance all humans have a
> pituitary gland.
> Where are the animals, that have a new or different type of gland,
> within any species that differs from others in that species?
Not all humans have a plantaris tendon.
> Where are the animals who have any different design in terms of their
> physiology?
> Their anatomy? The design differences within a species.
>
> Anywhere in nature.
See above.
> Does it not look like all species come from a mold?
Nope.
> And does that not mean then, that if there is one mold for a species,
> then that mold must have been designed?
Well given that your premise is faulty, it is no surprise
that your conclusion is also faulty.
> And in fact do we not see that if an animal strays from that mold, by
> natural processes such as genetic deformities, then circumstances will
> be such that that creature will be born with deformities, mental
> retardation and or epilepsy or other deficiencies which make the
> animal less suited for survival?
That is only a small part of the story, Most mutations are
neutral--conferring neither advantage or disadvantage in the
extant environment, soem are beneficial, in which case they
have the opposite result of the negative mutations.
>
> Have we ever seen any genetic defect, that resulted in some new organ
> or gland or similar? Some new design?
Yep, read up on polydactylism.
>>> One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
>>> be some variation in design.
>>> But there is none.
>>
>> Your argument is a smoking, ruin, just like your foot. Now
>> the question becomes one of whether you are man enough to
>> change your ideas to match reality, or whether you will
>> retreat furhter into fundamentalist dishonesty and deluded
>> ignorance.
>>
>> My money is on option 2.
Sadly I was right.
> I agree that adaptation is built into the design, and that the design
> is flexible enough, so that genetic differences are possible which
> will result in cultural differences, like different color sin or eyes
> or hair, and that other differences can help the body harmonize with
> its environment, but thats adaptation and flexibility of design.
>
> I do not see anywhere, where design can be attributed to natural
> selection.
Your lack of perception is no reason for anyone else to
accept that your blinkered view of the world is correct.
> And i don't see any examples of it in progress in nature where there
> are differences in design in any species.
Perhaps you should get out more.
> Every species has a mold.
Only if you don't look closely. When you get up close and
personal, reality is quite different.
rick_...@hotmail.com
I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
and all dolphins will follow this mold?
rick_...@hotmail.com
Did it have a cecal valve already and just developed a better one
because of teh diet? Thats adaptation, not a change in design.
Bigger head, adaptation.
People seem to be confusing adaptation with design differences.
Will in New Haven
There is no design. There is only variation, driven by elaborations of
the laws of physics. Please try to stop sucking so badly on my
computer.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Look all this up on getafukingeducationyouimbecile.com
No one owes you answers to your nitpicking questions. It's a waste of
time and you won't listen or remember anyway.
Cj
Cj
Bob T.
> On Jul 3, 3:16 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-07-03, rick_so...@hotmail.com <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
> > >> yet.
>
> > > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
> > > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
> > > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
> > > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
> > > physiology design differs within that group.
> > > As a starting point for discussion.
>
> > Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
>
> > Mark
>
> I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
> look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
Because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>
> Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
> and all dolphins will follow this mold?
There is no decision involved. All dolphins are descended from a
common ancestor.
- Bob T.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob T.
> On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> > > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> > > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> > > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> > > understand it more easily.
>
> > I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
> > evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
> > further.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> is the same throughout the entire species.
Well, no, not every human has exactly the same parts. Some humans
have six fingers on each hand.
>
> One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> be some variation in design. But there is none.
Look around you at your fellow humans. Are they all the same color?
Are they all the same height?
>
> And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
> found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
> population, so that all people would once again, all have the same design?
All humans have the same general (but not exact) design because we are
all related to each other.
>
> And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
> processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
> different in design. And then show where those differences are,
> because there are none of those either.
Hair color.
>
> Then perhaps you could show how what we call genetic defects, could in
> any way shape or form, be seen as an improvement made by evolution.
Study up on the genetics of sickle-cell anemia.
>
> When all the data we have suggests that if you stray, from the design,
> such as with the genetic code, you will get deformities, and genetic
> disease, rendering the person less suitable for his or her
> environment, not better adapted to his or her environment.
You are mistaken. Most mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and a
few are postive. The harmful mutations tend not to be passed along to
future generations, the positive ones do.
>
> So in order to change the human, you need to change the genetic code.
> And changes to the genetic code, result in severe disabilities and
> disease, because the human body is a complex interrelated system, and
> it is common sense, that if two people with genetic defects have
> children, they will pass those defects on to their children.
> Yet we do still do not see any people out there with a different design.
>
> How is that?
You sound like a person who lacks basic knowledge of biology and
genetics.
- Bob T.
rick_...@hotmail.com
Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
designs with differing physiology?
Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
species?
If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
that we know what DNA is. I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
can we see them?
SortingItOut
From the article:
"Most importantly, though, the researchers discovered the digestive
tracts of the lizards had changed. They were now divided, creating a
fermentation chamber where microbes could break down the toughest
portions of the plants."
"What was unique about this study was that the lizards developed brand
new structures, a part of their gut called a 'cecal valve' (which
separates the chambers). No one had ever documented that kind of
change before," Irschick said.
[end quote]
The article says nothing about the initial presence of a cecal valve.
It described what would be better described as a design change.
> People seem to be confusing adaptation with design differences.
Which people?
rick_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Is it a sign of intelligence to insult people?
Is it a sign of intelligence to be rude and evasive of simple honest
questions?
Do you have an education?
Is that why you are being rude and not adding to the discussion with
any constructive input?
Here is a simple honest question...
If it is estimated to take trillions and trillions of years for
evolution to happen on the mechanism for bacterial flagellar motility,
how long would it take for mankind to develop a gland that could
excrete acetacylic acid? (aspirin)
"There are many examples of what Behe describes as irreducibly complex
biosystems. However, the most famous of these is likely the bacterial
flagellar motility system. The flagellum is so famous and so commonly
used by intelligent design advocates that Miller refers to it as the
"poster child" of the intelligent design movement - and rightly so.
The flagellar motility system is quite impressive indeed. Consider
that the flagellar system, in particular, requires the services of
about 50 genes - including the genes for the sensory apparatus (turns
the flagellum clockwise or counterclockwise at a greater or lesser
rate depending on the environment) and the genes needed to code for
proteins that assist in building the flagellum (about 40 structural
proteins total). The total number of fairly specified (specifically
arranged for minimum function) codons of DNA needed to code for the
flagellar motility system, at minimum, is well over 10,000 codons.
That's like a good-sized 2,000-word essay. Without this minimum in
place, in its entirety, the motility function of the flagellum cannot
be realized to any useful degree of functionality. In short, when it
comes to the producing flagellar motility, a sizable minimum
structural threshold is required and this requirement is "irreducible"
if one wishes to maintain flagellar motility.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
Ken Shackleton
So you think that the theory of evolution expects dolphins to give
birth to something other than a dolphin?
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33093f77-4a30-449c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>> > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>> > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>> > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>> > understand it more easily.
>>
>> I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
>> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
>> further.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>>
>
> Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> is the same throughout the entire species.
Obviously you've never observed the diversity that exists in human
populations. Not all humans have the "exact same parts", as others have
pointed out. There are many variations in human form, including size,
shape, color, hair color and distrubtion, number of teeth, toes, fingers,
etc.
>
> One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> be some variation in design.
> But there is none.
Try going to your local mall, and watch the people walking past you. You
will see quite a bit of variation. For even more, go to you local Wal Mart
at 2 AM.
>
> And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
> found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
> population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
> design?
Evolution is not 'progress' it's change. Change happens in populations
over generations, as one genome gets replaced by another. There's always
going to be variation in any population, so there is no "same design".
>
> And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
> processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
> different in design.
Sure. Redheads, Blondes, Brunettes. Tall people, short, people, average
height. Dark skin, light skin, "olive" skin. People with epicantic folds
in their eyes. Blue eyes, brown eyes, hazel eyes.
> And then show where those differences are,
> because there are none of those either.
Again, if you want to see the variation in human forms, Wal Mart at 2 Am is
a good place to start.
>
> Then perhaps you could show how what we call genetic defects, could in
> any way shape or form, be seen as an improvement made by evolution.
Again, evolution is not "improvement" but change. As mentioned before,
sickle cell trait offers limited immunity to malaria.
>
> When all the data we have suggests that if you stray, from the design,
> such as with the genetic code, you will get deformities, and genetic
> disease, rendering the person less suitable for his or her
> environment, not better adapted to his or her environment.
As others have pointed out, most genetic mutations are neutral.
>
> So in order to change the human, you need to change the genetic code.
> And changes to the genetic code, result in severe disabilities and
> disease, because the human body is a complex interrelated system, and
> it is common sense, that if two people with genetic defects have
> children, they will pass those defects on to their children.
However if this "genetic defect" gives the person a better chance of
surviving, and passing on one's genes to the next generation, that's a
beneficial mutation.
> Yet we do still do not see any people out there with a different
> design.
>
> How is that?
Apparently because you aren't looking in the right place. Are you
currently trapped in a "Stepford Wives" factory, or perhaps a place where
people are cloned?
DJT
Ken Shackleton
Perhaps because something as basic as physiology, once established, is
difficult to change. Your physiology is not that different from a
dolphin, you are both air-breathing, endothermic mammals you know.
>
> Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
> species?
You are not very clear here.
However, if I understand you correctly, I wonder why you would expect
it to be much different and yet still consider those individuals to be
part of the same species.
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c7c0132-863c-4416...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...snip
>> Look all this up on getafukingeducationyouimbecile.com
>>
>> No one owes you answers to your nitpicking questions. It's a waste of
>> time and you won't listen or remember anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> Is it a sign of intelligence to insult people?
No, but it's not a sign of intelligence to misrepresent a scientific theory.
> Is it a sign of intelligence to be rude and evasive of simple honest
> questions?
Do you know anyone asking "honest" questions?
> Do you have an education?
It would appear he does. You?
> Is that why you are being rude and not adding to the discussion with
> any constructive input?
Fustration with dealing with stupid questions?
> Here is a simple honest question...
>
> If it is estimated to take trillions and trillions of years for
> evolution to happen on the mechanism for bacterial flagellar motility,
Estimated by whom? The Universe is only 13 billion years or so. Who
claims that it takes longer than the history of the universe for this to
happen?
> how long would it take for mankind to develop a gland that could
> excrete acetacylic acid? (aspirin)
That would depend on whether or not a gland that excretes Aspirin would be
required for life. Most likely, the answer would be "never" and the
species would go extinct before that happened. Species normally don't
evolve a structure that's not required.
>
> "There are many examples of what Behe describes as irreducibly complex
> biosystems.
Actually, there aren't. Behe's claim is wrong, and even if it were true,
"irreducible complexity" is not a problem for evolution.
> However, the most famous of these is likely the bacterial
> flagellar motility system. The flagellum is so famous and so commonly
> used by intelligent design advocates that Miller refers to it as the
> "poster child" of the intelligent design movement - and rightly so.
Did this site make it clear that Miller has shown that the flagellar system
is not "irreducibly complex"? See Miller's book 'Finding Darwin's God",
for a discussion of this.
> The flagellar motility system is quite impressive indeed. Consider
> that the flagellar system, in particular, requires the services of
> about 50 genes - including the genes for the sensory apparatus (turns
> the flagellum clockwise or counterclockwise at a greater or lesser
> rate depending on the environment) and the genes needed to code for
> proteins that assist in building the flagellum (about 40 structural
> proteins total). The total number of fairly specified (specifically
> arranged for minimum function) codons of DNA needed to code for the
> flagellar motility system, at minimum, is well over 10,000 codons.
> That's like a good-sized 2,000-word essay. Without this minimum in
> place, in its entirety, the motility function of the flagellum cannot
> be realized to any useful degree of functionality. In short, when it
> comes to the producing flagellar motility, a sizable minimum
> structural threshold is required and this requirement is "irreducible"
> if one wishes to maintain flagellar motility.
This claim is just an "argument from ignorance". The author doesn't know
how this happened, so he concludes it's impossible.
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
Oh dear, you are quoting Sean Pittman.... May God have mercy on your
soul.
DJT
Rusty Sites
> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> understand it more easily.
>
> evolution and how it has shaped mankind.
>
> For instance evolution is presently working towards improvements in
> feet, with some members of the population having 6 toes. A 6 toed
> person being more sure footed, and able to run faster,
Just consider the horse with only one (functional) toe. Look how slow
and clumsy they are. Certainly the more toes the better.
[drivel snipped]
>
> But! undoubtedly, over time, evolution will find ways to blend these
> into one congruent large deformity and then create various glands and
> organs to compensate for it.
>
> For although we all have the same parts today, in 6.6 billion trials,
> trial and error requires trillions upon trillions of trials, before
> serious advances can be made like a new organ, or a new gland, or a
> new appendage.
>
> Then once the proto appendage has begun to grow in some of the
> population, the others will by the _very _nature of the process
> itself, begin to empathize, and harmonize, with these new developments
> and begin to grow them as well. And that is you see, how it is, that
> 6.6 billion people, have the exact same design, and there are not lots
> of differences within the species, of design changes.
You demonstrate a very thorough lack of understanding of evolution.
Total ignorance is essential to your argument. Keep up the good work.
>
>
> And so even though, we know, that entropy, works from an organized
> state, to a disorganized state, and never in reverse, evolution is
> different.
Jeez. Even Answers in Genesis recognizes that as a bogus argument. Do
ice and water have the same entropy? For you argument, they better
because you can turn ice into water and water into ice right in your
kitchen. One day you should look up in the sky and see that big orange
ball up there. That's where the entropy is increasing.
Mark VandeWettering
> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 9:27 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > [snip]
>>
>> > > The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
>> > > yet.
>>
>> > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
>> > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
>> > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
>> > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
>> > physiology design differs within that group.
>> > As a starting point for discussion.
>>
>> Look all this up on getafukingeducationyouimbecile.com
>>
>> No one owes you answers to your nitpicking questions. It's a waste of
>> time and you won't listen or remember anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> Is it a sign of intelligence to insult people?
Being insulted is certainly no sign of your intelligence.
> Is it a sign of intelligence to be rude and evasive of simple honest
> questions?
You aren't asking honest questions.
> Do you have an education?
> Is that why you are being rude and not adding to the discussion with
> any constructive input?
> Here is a simple honest question...
>
> If it is estimated to take trillions and trillions of years for
> evolution to happen on the mechanism for bacterial flagellar motility,
> how long would it take for mankind to develop a gland that could
> excrete acetacylic acid? (aspirin)
It isn't estimated to take trillions of years.
> "There are many examples of what Behe describes as irreducibly complex
> biosystems. However, the most famous of these is likely the bacterial
> flagellar motility system. The flagellum is so famous and so commonly
> used by intelligent design advocates that Miller refers to it as the
> "poster child" of the intelligent design movement - and rightly so.
> The flagellar motility system is quite impressive indeed. Consider
> that the flagellar system, in particular, requires the services of
> about 50 genes - including the genes for the sensory apparatus (turns
> the flagellum clockwise or counterclockwise at a greater or lesser
> rate depending on the environment) and the genes needed to code for
> proteins that assist in building the flagellum (about 40 structural
> proteins total). The total number of fairly specified (specifically
> arranged for minimum function) codons of DNA needed to code for the
> flagellar motility system, at minimum, is well over 10,000 codons.
> That's like a good-sized 2,000-word essay. Without this minimum in
> place, in its entirety, the motility function of the flagellum cannot
> be realized to any useful degree of functionality. In short, when it
> comes to the producing flagellar motility, a sizable minimum
> structural threshold is required and this requirement is "irreducible"
> if one wishes to maintain flagellar motility.
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
Of course, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some other functionality
which could prove to be beneficial to the organism.
Mark
Bob T.
There are several different species of dolphin, each with slightly
different physiology.
>
> Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the species?
This question reveals a dramatic lack of understanding of the concept
of "species".
>
> If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
> then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
> that we know what DNA is. I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
> crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
> can we see them?
Did you see this story?
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/genetics/craig-venter-claims-artificial-life-has-been-created-307958.php
rick_...@hotmail.com
> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:33093f77-4a30-449c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> >> > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> >> > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> >> > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> >> > understand it more easily.
>
> >> I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
> >> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
> >> further.
>
> >> - Bob T.
>
> > Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> > humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> > the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> > design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> > is the same throughout the entire species.
>
> Obviously you've never observed the diversity that exists in human
> populations. Not all humans have the "exact same parts", as others have
> pointed out. There are many variations in human form, including size,
> shape, color, hair color and distrubtion, number of teeth, toes, fingers,
> etc.
>
Not variations of size and color of parts, variation in the design
part list.
As an example, the human body has a heart and lungs, and liver and
spleen. Where are the examples of a human body that is different in
the way it is designed and different in the way it works? I am not
talking about small differences in parts, like if we say, that a Chevy
has one tyupe of stock spark plug, and a Ford has a larger or slightly
different one, they both have spark plugs and they both have internal
combustion motors. But the Mazda has a rotary engine. It still works
and it is still a car, so where is the same type of design differences
in human biology, where you have different designs?
And not just human biology, but in every single species, you do not
find several different means to an end, in design, you find that every
species has a mold, and all the members of that species follow that
mold.
Where is the variety that should result from random variations and
random selection?
If it is a matter of trial and error, and not intelligent design, then
surely you don't think that in every case, there is only one solution
to every problem in nature.
And since we know there must be more than one solution to every
problem in nature which might give rise to natural selection, why do
we not see any variety, but instead see one mold?
>
>
> > One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> > be some variation in design.
> > But there is none.
>
> Try going to your local mall, and watch the people walking past you. You
> will see quite a bit of variation. For even more, go to you local Wal Mart
> at 2 AM.
>
Do they all have a heart, all have lungs, and interchangeable parts if
we had the technology to transplant everything?
Then they are all the same design from a design mold aren't they?
>
>
> > And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
> > found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
> > population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
> > design?
>
> Evolution is not 'progress' it's change. Change happens in populations
> over generations, as one genome gets replaced by another. There's always
> going to be variation in any population, so there is no "same design".
>
Adaptation is not the same as design. Changes in skin color or height
or weight or size these are not design differences, these are
variations within a design. This is flexibility of design within a
mold.
>
>
> > And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
> > processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
> > different in design.
>
> Sure. Redheads, Blondes, Brunettes. Tall people, short, people, average
> height. Dark skin, light skin, "olive" skin. People with epicantic folds
> in their eyes. Blue eyes, brown eyes, hazel eyes.
>
A red corvette is still a corvette. A blue corvette is still a
corvette, but a mazda, with a rotary engine, is not the same as a
corvette, with a piston driven engine. Yet they are both cars.
Where in all of nature do we see any design differences like this
within species?
Rupert Morrish
If you'd bother to read the link, you'd have learned that the caecal
valve is a new feature. The ancestral lizards didn't have them.
>
>
Bodega
> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> understand it more easily.
>
reactions 'n' infernal combusion engines needs propping up too. Durn
nitwit scientists.
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:447f092e-e735-4840...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...snip
>> > > Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
The Rete Mirable for one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_mirabile
>>
>> > > Mark
>>
>> > I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
>> > look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
>>
>> Because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
>> > and all dolphins will follow this mold?
>>
>> There is no decision involved. All dolphins are descended from a
>> common ancestor.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>>
>
>
> Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
> designs with differing physiology?
Because there isn't any evidence of two common ancestors. Dolphins and
other whales have the same physiology.
>
> Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
> species?
There isn't a "design mold", there is a genome, and every species contains
variation.
>
> If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
> then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
> that we know what DNA is.
Why would you assume that?
> I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
> crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
> can we see them?
Why do you assume nature "bashes up" DNA to make genomes? There have been
genetic engineered crops, and even some animals, but hardly a huge number of
them.
DJT
Mark VandeWettering
If you can't think of anyway that your organs differ from those of a dolphin,
and animal which (let's be fair) looks significantly different from humans,
why should we entertain your comical notion that all humans (or all dolphins)
"look alike"? It appears that you think you aren't qualified to determine
the differences between humans and dolphins, which hardly is a ringing
endorsement of your perceptive abilities.
Mark
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76c64537-15d2-4fd2...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 1:57 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:10:52 -0700 (PDT), rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>> >of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>> >work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>> >possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>> >understand it more easily.
>>
>> We'll get right on that.
>
> Yes, so I can teach it to properly to my children.
>
> And so maybe you can help me with that and answer some questions like,
> what would happen if the flipper babies took to the sea, would we have
> sea people?
By "flipper babies" do you mean children with deformities due to
thalidimide? If those babies "took to the sea" they would probably drown.
First of all, there's no evidence that deformities caused by chemical
damage in the womb are inheritable, so it's not likely that "flippers" are
an inheritiable trait. Second, since humans don't posess gills, or other
primary modifications for aquatic life, it's not likely that having arms
resembling "flippers" would offer any advantage to humans who "took to the
sea". Third, you need to learn something about biology, and about
evolution before you pretend to mock it.
HTH
DJT
>
rick_...@hotmail.com
A recessive gene?
How could it not have one, when other creatures have them?
How could it not have one, and then just invent, what already exists
in nature in other species?
I think that article is misleading.
Rupert Morrish
It's not so much that, as that things that look like the things we call
dolphins tend to get called dolphins. Now, amongst the 40 or so species
of dolphin, there is significant variation. Which species in particular
were you thinking of?
You look a bit like your parents and a bit like your siblings. We don't
have any problem identifying you as the same species. You look a bit
less like your cousins, and a bit less than that like your second
cousins. Your 209th cousins (according to the creationists) include
everyone on the planet, including black africans, asians and Tasmanian
aboriginies. You're still the same species, but people have been able to
come up with arguments to the contrary. None of them look that much
different to their parents, or to their siblings.
Now, if you don't have a problem accepting that much variation, without
any dramatic changes from one generation to another, in a mere 209
generations, how much change do you think there would be in 300,000
generations?
>
rick_...@hotmail.com
Well you are obviously a highly perceptive individual, who probably
knows a thing or two about how these science things work,
So perhaps you could explain to everyone how it is, that entropy works
in the opposite direction when it comes to evolution, and how things
in nature are first in a disorganized state, and then through the
actions of atoms, and there is nothing but atoms and the void, how
through the interactions of atoms and molecular processes, evolution
defies the normal direction of entropy?
How is it that systems in human biology, by themselves, become more
organized, and we somehow have developed from simple life forms?
hersheyh
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:52:03 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
> rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> >>> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> >>> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> >>> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> >>> understand it more easily.
>
> >> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
> >> further.
>
> >> - Bob T.
>
> > Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> > humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> > the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> > design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> > is the same throughout the entire species.
The basic mammalian form serves us well. So do the minor
modifications of that form.
>
> Perhpas you could explain why you believe this.
>
> For a start, humans come in two basic varieties which vary
> quite significantly in their parts, design and function.
And those two start with a common embryonic form and differentiate
from that form.
>
> Then there are those that have differences that are normally
> referred to as racial differences, the epicantic fold, the
> predominance of black hair in the oriental reces, skin
> pigmentation etc.
>
> Next we have the differences that affect individuals in
> many/all populations, dwarfism, albinoism, Downs syndrome,
> variation in height and other measuremnts and body/organ
> shape--remember you said everyone has the exact same
> parts--variation in hair colour and distribution, Sickle
> cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, polydactylism, cojoined twins
> that share limbs and/or organs....
Might want to go to Online Mendelism in Man
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=omim&TabCmd=Limits
to explore other examples of human variation. Used to be published
as a book, but now that it has too many examples to fit in one volume,
it is easier to use the computer.
> Do I need to keep on going?
>
> > One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> > be some variation in design.
> > But there is none.
>
> Your argument is a smoking, ruin, just like your foot. Now
> the question becomes one of whether you are man enough to
> change your ideas to match reality, or whether you will
> retreat furhter into fundamentalist dishonesty and deluded
> ignorance.
>
> My money is on option 2.
>
> [...]
Rupert Morrish
Nope. It's not just rare in the parent population. It's doesn't exist.
> How could it not have one, when other creatures have them?
Same reason you don't have opposable thumbs on your feet.
> How could it not have one, and then just invent, what already exists
> in nature in other species?
You're asking about convergent evolution? All kinds of animals eat
plants. Slowing down the flow of food through the gut is a distinct
advantage. However it happens, it will be inherited. I suspect that this
valve is not developed in exactly the same way as in other lizards that
have had these valves for millions of years.
> I think that article is misleading.
Then you should read the primary literature. I'm sorry, I don't have a
reference handy.
>
hersheyh
> On Jul 3, 3:05 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
> > >> yet.
>
> > > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
> > > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
> > > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
> > > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
> > > physiology design differs within that group.
> > > As a starting point for discussion.
>
> > A useful mutation already fixed in 30% of the population is probably
> > only a few generations away from being fixed in 100% of the population.
> > So it's not easy to catch the transition.
>
> > However, here's an example of a sub-population evolving a new organ
> > because of a change in diet:http://richarddawkins.net/article,2663,n,n
>
> Did it have a cecal valve already and just developed a better one
> because of teh diet? Thats adaptation, not a change in design.
> Bigger head, adaptation.
> People seem to be confusing adaptation with design differences.
Apparently one of the words you need to understand is "adaptation".
Adaptation when you talk about an *individual's* adaptation to an
environmental change is not due to a genetic change in that
individual. Genes often provide only a range of normality that can be
affected by environment. For example, early childhood environmental
conditions (say poor diet) can affect one's height relative to what it
would have been had those environmental conditions not been present.
That is an example of adaptation in the individual: The individual's
genes are unchanged, but the environment affects how those genes
interact to produce the individual.
For another example, thalidomide can affect phenotype when used at a
particular time during embryonic growth. The individual's adaptation
to this environmental influence is permanent and life long. But his
genetic make-up is not changed.
When you talk about a *population's* adaptation to environment,
however, you are generally talking about a change in the allele
frequency of the population. This is a genetic difference in the
population and not a non-genetic adaptation of individuals. Certain
individuals fail to reproduce as well as they did because of the
changed environment and their genes are not passed on. That,
adaptation of *populations* to environments by changes in their
genetic make up is what *evolution* is about.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:447f092e-e735-4840...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Jul 3, 3:50 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> > > Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
>
> The Rete Mirable for one
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_mirabile
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > > Mark
>
> >> > I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
> >> > look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
>
> >> Because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>
> >> > Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
> >> > and all dolphins will follow this mold?
>
> >> There is no decision involved. All dolphins are descended from a
> >> common ancestor.
>
> >> - Bob T.
>
> > Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
> > designs with differing physiology?
>
> Because there isn't any evidence of two common ancestors. Dolphins and
> other whales have the same physiology.
>
>
>
> > Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
> > species?
>
> There isn't a "design mold", there is a genome, and every species contains
> variation.
>
Ok so where are the Mazda rotary engines in the human genome?
Where are the different workable designs within one genome?
Where are the humans with a different parts list?
Case in point, the Founder Effect.
If you have a small group of interbreeding people, they have a higher
degree of polydactyly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly
As is the case within Amish populations. And we know that polydactyly
leads to other more serious disorders and is often accompanied by
mental retardation and epilepsy.
So then the concept that the mold of a species came from a small
select group, is challenged by the data which suggests that any small
group which interbreeds, has a smaller chance of survival and a
greater chance of deformity and health problems.
So then how is it, that one design is present in the human genome?
That we have an interchangeable parts list and there are billions of
different parts?
Why are there no rotary engine type of differences within the human
genome?
hersheyh
Selection, of course, only works on variants that *actually* exist in
the population. Doesn't matter if the variant is due to a dominant or
recessive gene. If it isn't there selection will not work to change
the frequency of the variant in the population. Magical poofing of
features is not allowed in science. Natural mechanisms of change are.
metspitzer
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>Estimated by whom? The Universe is only 13 billion years or so. Who
>claims that it takes longer than the history of the universe for this to
>happen?
>
It was 13 billion years old back when I was in high school. It is
older than that now. :)
Ken Shackleton
The variations are variations on the previous generation. The
variations from generation to generation are small, because large
changes all at once are almost guaranteed to be fatal. What is
observed is remodeling of existing structures as they became used for
new purposes. That is why a bats wing [or that of a bird] is a
remodeled tetrapod forelimb.
Earle Jones
<f55d59d2-4f5d-4f02...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
rick_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> understand it more easily....
*
What has become painfully obvious is that your understanding, or rather
your lack of understanding, of evolution is painfully evident.
Before you further evidence your ignorance, you might want to spend some
time understanding the phenomena.
earle
*
hersheyh
> On Jul 3, 3:16 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> [snip]
>
> > >> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
> > >> yet.
>
> > > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
> > > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
> > > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
> > > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
> > > physiology design differs within that group.
> > > As a starting point for discussion.
>
>
>
> I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences
Yes. We are already well aware of your lack of knowledge. It showed
immediately.
> but why do they all
> look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
There is variation in populations of dolphins, just as there is
variation (both genetic and merely biological) in humans. The workers
at aquaria can tell the differences between individual dolphins.
> Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
> and all dolphins will follow this mold?
Dolphins are not a single species. There are a number of different
dolphin species. Each species meets the criteria of being a "dolphin"
because they all had a common ancestor, but broke up into individual
and *slightly* different (at the *genetic* level) populations that
have become reproductively isolated in nature. No one decided that
there was a mold for a dolphin. Dolphins fill a viable ecological
niche in which they are successful.
KlausH
> On Jul 3, 3:36 am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
>>>> yet.
>>> Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
>>> Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
>>> lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
>>> organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
>>> physiology design differs within that group.
>>> As a starting point for discussion.
>>
>> No one owes you answers to your nitpicking questions. It's a waste of
>> time and you won't listen or remember anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> Is it a sign of intelligence to insult people?
> questions?
> Is that why you are being rude and not adding to the discussion with
> any constructive input?
> Here is a simple honest question...
>
> If it is estimated to take trillions and trillions of years for
> evolution to happen on the mechanism for bacterial flagellar motility,
> how long would it take for mankind to develop a gland that could
> excrete acetacylic acid? (aspirin)
Looks like you do not know chemistry, either.
Trying to use big words, that you do not understand,often backfires.
Klaus
rick_...@hotmail.com
Well where are the dolphins with a different heart, that works
differently, like a rotary engine, works differently from a piston
driven engine?
In all those dolphins and whales, do they have any other unique organs
that some other members of that species, within that genome, do not
have? Are there a few who have a different set of organs but look the
same?
Why do all species within a genome, have the same parts, and those
parts work the same way?
Why are there not examples of dolphins, who have a glorb,
(hypothetical) which allows them to see in the dark. Or why are there
not some dolphins who are electric, like electric eels, within the
dolphin species?
Or any other type of difference in the human genome, which is
similar., Why is the design, the same and why do we see one common
ancestor, and is that common ancestor, the design mold ancestor?
hersheyh
> On Jul 3, 3:50 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 7:27 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 3:16 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2008-07-03, rick_so...@hotmail.com <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> [snip]
>
> > > > >> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
> > > > >> yet.
>
> > > > > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
> > > > > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
> > > > > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
> > > > > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
> > > > > physiology design differs within that group.
> > > > > As a starting point for discussion.
>
> > > > Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
>
> > > > Mark
>
> > > I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
> > > look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
>
>
> > > and all dolphins will follow this mold?
>
> > common ancestor.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
> designs with differing physiology?
In fact, some species arise from hybridization of two species.
Particularly in plants. Allopolyploidization is the fancy term.
>
> Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
> species?
First you need to understand that "dolphin" is not a species, but a
group of related species. So asking that question wrt dolphins makes
no sense. Dolphins closest cousins, of course, are whales. And
dolphins and whales share a good chunk of what you consider a "mold".
> If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
> then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
> that we know what DNA is. I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
> crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
> can we see them?
Most evolutionary change involves fixation of alternate alleles at
selectively neutral sites.
Rupert Morrish
> On Jul 3, 3:36 am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
>>>> yet.
>>> Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
>>> Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
>>> lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
>>> organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
>>> physiology design differs within that group.
>>> As a starting point for discussion.
>>
>> No one owes you answers to your nitpicking questions. It's a waste of
>> time and you won't listen or remember anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
> Is it a sign of intelligence to insult people?
> Is it a sign of intelligence to be rude and evasive of simple honest
> questions?
> Do you have an education?
> Is that why you are being rude and not adding to the discussion with
> any constructive input?
> Here is a simple honest question...
>
> If it is estimated to take trillions and trillions of years for
> evolution to happen on the mechanism for bacterial flagellar motility,
Then someone has pulled some large numbers out of you know where and
multiplied them.
Alternatively, someone has postulated a pathway, and correctly
calculated the time to traverse that pathway, proving only that that was
not the path taken.
> how long would it take for mankind to develop a gland that could
> excrete acetacylic acid? (aspirin)
I think you mean acetylsalicylic acid?
I doubt it would arrive in the form of a new gland, but rather in a
modification of an existing gene, and existing regulatory genes would
determine where in the body the aspiring was produced.
Assuming there is a neutral pathway from the current human genome to one
that produces aspirin, there's a fairly simple rule of thumb that allows
you to estimate how many generations it would take to become fixed in
the population, *if* it became fixed. Since it's neutral, there's no
guarantee we'll drift that way.
>
> "There are many examples of what Behe describes as irreducibly complex
> biosystems. However, the most famous of these is likely the bacterial
> flagellar motility system. The flagellum is so famous and so commonly
> used by intelligent design advocates that Miller refers to it as the
> "poster child" of the intelligent design movement - and rightly so.
> The flagellar motility system is quite impressive indeed. Consider
> that the flagellar system, in particular, requires the services of
> about 50 genes - including the genes for the sensory apparatus (turns
> the flagellum clockwise or counterclockwise at a greater or lesser
> rate depending on the environment) and the genes needed to code for
> proteins that assist in building the flagellum (about 40 structural
> proteins total). The total number of fairly specified (specifically
> arranged for minimum function) codons of DNA needed to code for the
> flagellar motility system, at minimum, is well over 10,000 codons.
> That's like a good-sized 2,000-word essay. Without this minimum in
> place, in its entirety, the motility function of the flagellum cannot
> be realized to any useful degree of functionality.
Yet most bacteria don't have a flagellum. So the functionality isn't
/required/ at all.
> In short, when it
> comes to the producing flagellar motility, a sizable minimum
> structural threshold is required and this requirement is "irreducible"
> if one wishes to maintain flagellar motility.
It doesn't mean the components didn't do something else before they
became part of the flagellar system.
Put another way, how long would it have taken to invent the automobile
if pistons, gears, carts, wheels and gasoline were not already known?
All of those were developed for other reasons, but if you remove them
from a car it stops working.
John Wilkins
13.73 billion years give or take 120my. Which means you are *old*...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> A red corvette is still a corvette. A blue corvette is still a
> corvette, but a mazda, with a rotary engine, is not the same as a
> corvette, with a piston driven engine. Yet they are both cars.
>
> Where in all of nature do we see any design differences like this
> within species?
Well, if we found such polymorphism in a pair of fossils, we'd probably
call them separate species. I believe a pair of Moa species were
recently merged into one when it was shown that the female was almost
twice the size of the male.
In living species, we don't expect large differences in structure
between animals with recent common ancestors. You seem to be arguing
against a "hopeful monster" model of evolution, which no-one really
supports. We are just slightly different from our parents, and they from
our grandparents, going back almost a trillion generations.
>
>
>
rick_...@hotmail.com
So we have a common ancestor, and so now billions of generations
later, here we are. In one person, we will say, by some fluke of
nature they develop an improvement to the genome, through natural
selection after a strand of DNA is hit by a cosmic ray.
Now then they develop a very good horn on the top of their head and
doctors don't remove it, and if that person person has offspring it
will develop that horn because it ends up creating a dominant gene for
this marvelous horn and it looks nice. So then how does that person
now become the common ancestor so that 2 million years from now
everyone will have that horn?
Rupert Morrish
I think Rick would have fun talking to the Aquatic Ape people.
>
> HTH
>
> DJT
>
>
>
>
>
>
Vernon Balbert
keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
Entropy does not work in the opposite direction with regards to
evolution or any other process in the natural world. When sodium and
chlorine ions bond to each other to form salt crystals, which are more
complex than the original elements, is this against entropy? The
biggest problem with this argument is that the earth is not a closed
system. It gets an incredible amount of energy from the sun. This is
what drives life on the earth.
--
I hope I didn't brain my damage!
Rusty Sites
> On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>>> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>>> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>>> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>>> understand it more easily.
>> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
>> further.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>>
>
> Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> is the same throughout the entire species.
>
> be some variation in design.
> But there is none.
>
> found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
> population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
> design?
Very simple. Radical differences in body plans, number and types of
organs, etc. would almost certainly lead to incompatibilities in the
development program and the offspring would not survive the early stages
of development. That means such differences could never develop within
a species. They do develop in higher taxonomic groups, however. Why
must evolution produce these sorts of differences within species? That
just makes no sense.
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be6e1bf4-a1f7-46f9...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...snip
>> Obviously you've never observed the diversity that exists in human
>> populations. Not all humans have the "exact same parts", as others have
>> pointed out. There are many variations in human form, including size,
>> shape, color, hair color and distrubtion, number of teeth, toes, fingers,
>> etc.
>>
>
> Not variations of size and color of parts, variation in the design
> part list.
So, what you want is a species that doesn't share the same biology. How
odd is that?
>
> As an example, the human body has a heart and lungs, and liver and
> spleen. Where are the examples of a human body that is different in
> the way it is designed and different in the way it works?
If it were that different, it wouldn't be a human being.
> I am not
> talking about small differences in parts, like if we say, that a Chevy
> has one tyupe of stock spark plug, and a Ford has a larger or slightly
> different one, they both have spark plugs and they both have internal
> combustion motors. But the Mazda has a rotary engine. It still works
> and it is still a car, so where is the same type of design differences
> in human biology, where you have different designs?
You have to go beyond species to find that level of change, as is expected
from common descent.
>
> And not just human biology, but in every single species, you do not
> find several different means to an end, in design, you find that every
> species has a mold, and all the members of that species follow that
> mold.
That's because all species are members of a population related by common
descent. If you wish to find "different means to an end" you have to go
beyond the species.
>
> Where is the variety that should result from random variations and
> random selection?
In life in general. The variety that is seen in nature comes from the
branching pattern of descent. Think of sharks and dolphins. They have
very similar body shapes, but very different physiology.
>
> If it is a matter of trial and error, and not intelligent design, then
> surely you don't think that in every case, there is only one solution
> to every problem in nature.
Because there are a limited number of solutions that work in nature.
Mammals are descendants of tetrapods, who evolved from lobe finned fishes,
so all mammals share similar parts, and they share less with other
tetrapods, such as reptiles, birds, amphibians. The closer the
relationship, the more features shared. Insects, for example live on
land, but extract oxygen from the air with different organs than tetrapods
do. Whales and sharks both live in water, but whales breathe air, and
sharks extract oxygen from the water with gills. Lobsters and other
crustaceans carry oxygen to their blood using different chemical in their
blood than the hemaglobin that fish, and other vertebrates do.
Nature does use more than one solution for similar problems, but since
reproduction involves making copies (imperfect ones), rather than designing
from scratch, offspring will resemble their parents.
>
> And since we know there must be more than one solution to every
> problem in nature which might give rise to natural selection, why do
> we not see any variety, but instead see one mold?
We don't see "one mold". We see a branching pattern of inheritance, with
nested heirarchy of relationships. All mammals share similarities with
other chordates, which share features with all other animals, which share
features with all other eukaryotes, which share features with all other
life.
>
>>
>>
>> > One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
>> > be some variation in design.
>> > But there is none.
>>
>> Try going to your local mall, and watch the people walking past you.
>> You
>> will see quite a bit of variation. For even more, go to you local Wal
>> Mart
>> at 2 AM.
>>
>
> Do they all have a heart, all have lungs, and interchangeable parts if
> we had the technology to transplant everything?
The point is there is a great deal of diversity in human populations.
Humans are evolved from creatures that had hearts, lungs, etc, so all humans
have those features too.
>
> Then they are all the same design from a design mold aren't they?
They aren't from a 'design mold" at all, they share a common genome, which
proscribes the number of limbs, heads, etc. Not all creatures have that
same genome, those who don't aren't humans.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
>> > found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
>> > population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
>> > design?
>>
>> Evolution is not 'progress' it's change. Change happens in populations
>> over generations, as one genome gets replaced by another. There's
>> always
>> going to be variation in any population, so there is no "same design".
>>
>
> Adaptation is not the same as design.
Neither is a chair the same as a hat. What's your point?
> Changes in skin color or height
> or weight or size these are not design differences, these are
> variations within a design.
But they are variations, which you claimed weren't there.
> This is flexibility of design within a
> mold.
Not "mold", but genome. With enough variation, you could get beyond what
is considered "human". That's when speciation occurs.
>
>>
>>
>> > And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
>> > processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
>> > different in design.
>>
>> Sure. Redheads, Blondes, Brunettes. Tall people, short, people,
>> average
>> height. Dark skin, light skin, "olive" skin. People with epicantic
>> folds
>> in their eyes. Blue eyes, brown eyes, hazel eyes.
>>
>
> A red corvette is still a corvette. A blue corvette is still a
> corvette, but a mazda, with a rotary engine, is not the same as a
> corvette, with a piston driven engine. Yet they are both cars.
Likewise a chimpanzee is not a human, but they share over 98% of their
genome. They are both apes. How far do you allow change to go before
something becomes something else. Is a pick up truck a "car"? What
about an El Camino?
You are saying that all humans are the same "mold", but the "mold" isn't
as sharp as you seem to think.
>
> Where in all of nature do we see any design differences like this
> within species?
You wouldn't expect to see that kind of "design differences" within a
species. Finding a human that had a lobster's hemoglobin (or whatever),
or gills like a fish would invalidate the theory of evolution. Chimeras
like that would be possible with "intelligent design" but not with
evolution.
DJT
David Hare-Scott
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33093f77-4a30-449c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> > > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> > > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> > > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> > > understand it more easily.
> >
> > I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
> > evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
> > further.
> >
> > - Bob T.
> >
>
> Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> is the same throughout the entire species.
>
That is simply not true.
> One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> be some variation in design.
> But there is none.
>
Nobody said the process was random. It isn't. There are some components of
the system that are random which is quite different.
> And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
> found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
> population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
> design?
>
I can't because it wouldn't happen.
> And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
> processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
> different in design. And then show where those differences are,
> because there are none of those either.
>
Eye colour, shape of ears, hairyness of ears, simple syndactyly, I am sure
there are many more.
> Then perhaps you could show how what we call genetic defects, could in
> any way shape or form, be seen as an improvement made by evolution.
>
By definition a defect is not an improvment so how is anybody going to show
you that? Not all variations are defects however.
> When all the data we have suggests that if you stray, from the design,
> such as with the genetic code, you will get deformities, and genetic
> disease, rendering the person less suitable for his or her
> environment, not better adapted to his or her environment.
>
Not always. There is plenty of evidence that mutations that may be beneficial
in some environments have turned up in humans, some fairly recently such as
lactose tolerance.
> So in order to change the human, you need to change the genetic code.
> And changes to the genetic code, result in severe disabilities and
> disease, because the human body is a complex interrelated system, and
> it is common sense, that if two people with genetic defects have
> children, they will pass those defects on to their children.
> Yet we do still do not see any people out there with a different
> design.
>
> How is that?
>
I see them all the time. Apparently you are not too observant.
David
Devil's Advocaat
> It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> understand it more easily.
>
> evolution and how it has shaped mankind.
>
> For instance evolution is presently working towards improvements in
> feet, with some members of the population having 6 toes. A 6 toed
> person being more sure footed, and able to run faster, so that when
> the great fire destroys all but the 6 toed ones, every person will
> have 6 toes, just as today, every person has the same number of parts,
> in the human body, and the same type of parts, in the human body. Of
> which there are billions of them, thanks to these evolutionary
> processes.
Now lets stop right there and examine the contradictions, first you
declare "evolution is presently working towards improvements ... with
some members of the population having 6 toes" and then you declare
"every person has the same number of parts".
Can you see how that makes you look?
rick_...@hotmail.com
> It doesn't mean the components didn't do something else before they
> became part of the flagellar system.
>
Well thats true but the actual motility is not there, unless the
complete system is in tact. So to say it is a pathway, to me, just
sounds very much like a useful ploy, to suggest that random variation,
is not random, because we do not see random variations, random
variations would be detrimental to the organism as there is a billion
ways to do something wrong and perhaps one way to do it right.
But then who designs these pathways? And well why would there be
pathways, and how does a body, decide then there is a need and then
design a method to fill that need, using genetic information?
And I will suggest there is a need for a gland that secretes aspirin,
and it would be advantageous, to have that gland, as most people take
aspirin at some point.
But to create a gland that secretes aspirin, you would have to know
about dosages, and also about the side effects to the stomach, and so
then is it all trial and error, in developing that gland, where many
many people will die but some will survive, and then all will have
that gland? When the organism can survive without it, but it is
advantageous to have it.
Another example is the horn that appears on a person's head and it
becomes a dominant gene and the children have it and it looks nice and
become prestigious to have it, and so people want to mate with the
horned ones and so 2 million years from now people have this nice
attractive looking horn, and the first individual to have it is the
common ancestor.
So why don't we see this in progress anywhere in the world, where some
people have some unique trait, or some part of the population has some
unique gland, but instead what we see, is that all people have the
same parts?
Rupert Morrish
Sex. You have probably heard of it.
>
Rupert Morrish
When we refer to a common ancestor we usually mean a population of
organisms, not an individual organism.
Dolphins don't have glorbs because their parents don't have glorbs.
The ancestors of dolphins had hind legs (sometimes dolphins are seen
with hind legs - this is an atavism). Over thousands of generations, the
average hind leg length got shorter and shorter, until now they're not
there at all. If I lined up all a dolphins's ancestors, you would not be
able to see the difference between any parent and any child. but
eventually the hind legs would be gone.
Bird teeth are different. We can breed chickens with teeth - it just
requires knocking out a particular gene. That gene, which belonged to
the common ancestor of all birds, simply turns off the development of
teeth. It may have been useful, or it may have been a spandrel, brought
along by its association with the genes for feathers and flight.
Incidentally, the teeth that the chickens grow are dinosaur teeth. Do
you know why that is?
>
hersheyh
No billions of generations between modern humans and their most recent
common ancestor (which was not a chimp, but another hominid, most
likely some kind of H. erectus). You really shouldn't be tossing
random numbers around. It *really* makes you look ignorant.
> later, here we are. In one person, we will say, by some fluke of
> nature they develop an improvement to the genome, through natural
> selection after a strand of DNA is hit by a cosmic ray.
Not a lot of them. But there are some minor differences between the
most recent H. erectus and the oldest H. sapiens (and other
differences between ancient H. sapiens and modern H. sapiens). Brain
chemistry and size. Language capability. Bipedalism and tool-making
were already there.
> Now then they develop a very good horn on the top of their head and
> doctors don't remove it, and if that person person has offspring it
> will develop that horn because it ends up creating a dominant gene for
> this marvelous horn and it looks nice. So then how does that person
> now become the common ancestor so that 2 million years from now
> everyone will have that horn?
That person (with original mutant variation) *became* the common (and
long since dead) ancestor *because* the variant allele that resulted
in horn formation spread throughout the population over the
generations between him and the population that exists 2 million years
from now and basically became the most common allele. Why do you
think it impossible for a variant allele to become the most common one
gradually by increasing in the population relative to the former most
common one by, say, 1% greater per generation? How many generations
do you think it would take?
David Hare-Scott
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:447f092e-e735-4840...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
> species?
>
If you saw two organisms that had a diferent 'design mold' wouldn't you call
them different species? If not what do you mean by 'design mold' and
'species'.
This seems just a word game like finding the defect that is an improvement.
David
Rupert Morrish
A wise poster once said "I stayed up all night wondering what the source
of this energy could be. And then it dawned on me."
>
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45326e9d-018a-4d10...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...snip
>> There isn't a "design mold", there is a genome, and every species
>> contains
>> variation.
>>
>
> Ok so where are the Mazda rotary engines in the human genome?
They don't exist. That's what one would expect with a "intelligent
designer" not evolution.
>
> Where are the different workable designs within one genome?
They normally aren't there, because a person's genome is inherited from his
or her parents. Different workable designs are seen in other species, such
as lobsters, or bees, or octopi, nematodes, etc.
>
> Where are the humans with a different parts list?
The "parts list" of humans is part of the genome. Other creatures with
different "parts lists" are different species.
>
> Case in point, the Founder Effect.
Yes, what about it? Red hair in populations is most likely the result of
that. There was a family in Appalachia that carried a gene that caused a
bluish cast to the skin. As long as the family was isolated, the feature
stayed in the population.
>
> If you have a small group of interbreeding people, they have a higher
> degree of polydactyly
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly
Yep, again, what about it?
>
> As is the case within Amish populations. And we know that polydactyly
> leads to other more serious disorders and is often accompanied by
> mental retardation and epilepsy.
Actually polydactyly only "leads to" having more fingers or toes. One
genetic disorder doesn't lead to another. Populations such as the Amish
are more likely to exhibit other genetic disorders, but not because of
polydactyly. The reason why one tends to see genetic abnormalites more
frequently in Amish populations is because of the inbreeding, where two sets
of recessive traits are more likely to be inheritied. Mental retardation
and epilepsy exist in the larger population as well.
>
> So then the concept that the mold of a species came from a small
> select group, is challenged by the data which suggests that any small
> group which interbreeds, has a smaller chance of survival and a
> greater chance of deformity and health problems.
Why do you assume a "mold of a species" has to come from a small select
group? Species start out as populations, where interbreeding is common.
Beneficial mutations spread throughout the population as a whole, not in one
select group. Speciation (new species) happens when part of the population
becomes isolated from the parent population, and eventually becomes unable
to breed with the original population.
Speciation may occur more quickly in a smaller population, but the size of
the population is not a barrier to speciation.
>
> So then how is it, that one design is present in the human genome?
As pointed out before, "one design" is not present. Humans have a form they
inherited from their ancestors, but there are many variations on that form.
> That we have an interchangeable parts list and there are billions of
> different parts?
We have "interchangeable parts" (which aren't that interchangeable, ask any
transplant coordinator) because we are descended from ancestors with those
same parts. That's a prediction of evolutionary theory. It might be
possible for a large number of basic designs for humans to be present, if
there was an "intelligent designer", but evolution doesn't work that way.
Consider the number and diversity of robots humans have designed, because
they are purpose built for particular functions. Humans, and other
living things have to work with what nature gave them.
>
> Why are there no rotary engine type of differences within the human
> genome?
Because humans evolved from ancestors without "rotary engines". Only an
"intelligent designer" would be able to provide one.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d1a1972-7805-4a0b...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 4:39 am, Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:> It has become painfully
>> obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>> > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>> > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>> > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>> > understand it more easily.
>>
>> Of course, all those theories about orbital mechanics and nuclear
>> reactions 'n' infernal combusion engines needs propping up too. Durn
>> nitwit scientists.
>
> Well you are obviously a highly perceptive individual, who probably
> knows a thing or two about how these science things work,
> So perhaps you could explain to everyone how it is, that entropy works
> in the opposite direction when it comes to evolution,
It doesn't. Entropy can only operate in one way. What you are apparently
not aware of, is that entropy operates exactly the same in evolution as it
does in any other natural process. More energy is taken in, in
evolutionary processes than comes out. Evolution operates on solar
power, so to speak, so that temporary organization is possible, as long as
energy is being added.
It's a mistake to think that entropy prevents localized organization.
Hurricanes are an example of temporary reversal of disorder, due to heat
energy being applied. Crystal form, becoming more oganized than the liquid
they form from.
> and how things
> in nature are first in a disorganized state, and then through the
> actions of atoms, and there is nothing but atoms and the void, how
> through the interactions of atoms and molecular processes, evolution
> defies the normal direction of entropy?
Evolution does not defy the normal direction of entropy. Evolution, like
many other processes is fueled by solar energy. More energy is being
supplied by the sun than is used by living organisms, so entropy operates
like normal.
> How is it that systems in human biology, by themselves, become more
> organized, and we somehow have developed from simple life forms?
Because the first organisms were simple, and there was no other way to go,
then become more complex. Going from simple to complex is not a violation
of the law of entropy, as long as energy is being expended.
DJT
Rusty Sites
> metspitzer <kilo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:37:52 -0600, "Dana Tweedy"
>> <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Estimated by whom? The Universe is only 13 billion years or so. Who
>>> claims that it takes longer than the history of the universe for this to
>>> happen?
>>>
>> It was 13 billion years old back when I was in high school. It is
>> older than that now. :)
>
> 13.73 billion years give or take 120my. Which means you are *old*...
And went to a really advanced high school for its time.
rick_...@hotmail.com
>
> > So we have a common ancestor, and so now billions of generations
> > later, here we are. In one person, we will say, by some fluke of
> > nature they develop an improvement to the genome, through natural
> > selection after a strand of DNA is hit by a cosmic ray.
> > Now then they develop a very good horn on the top of their head and
> > doctors don't remove it, and if that person person has offspring it
> > will develop that horn because it ends up creating a dominant gene for
> > this marvelous horn and it looks nice. So then how does that person
> > now become the common ancestor so that 2 million years from now
> > everyone will have that horn?
>
> Sex. You have probably heard of it.
>
Yes I see horny people, but no people with horns.
Although, there are probably some deformed horned people out there.
And yes, scientists have modified crops, but haven't they just spliced
DNA and used existing DNA? Has anyone created any new code? Or are
they merely using function calls, like a toolset?
Is anyone, or is nature, writing any new functions?
I don't think we see very much variety in design, although we see lots
of variation within design parameters.
Just because people speak of intelligent design, does not mean they
are talking about instantaneous spontaneous creation.
There are people who talk about intelligent design in the same way
people attribute it to nature. That you need to write code to get
something to work.
The difference being nature has no mind, and so how could it see
anything, at all, beyond, what molecular processes see, which is
positive charge, negative charge, covalent bonding, simple opportunism
such as a heavy hydrogen atom can fit into a hydrogen slot, simple
molecules can come together to create complex molecules, how do you
get from that, to an eye that works and has 30 centers in the brain
related to sight?
One piece at a time? One accident at a time? One random chance at a
time? If there are a billion ways to do something wrong and one way to
do something right, then it makes sense that the enzymes want to
replicate DNA exactly with as little variation as possible, which
reduces dramatically, you r chances of variety from which to choose
from.
So then, you have to wait for a mistake to get through the safeguards,
then you have to hope, that it will lead to some useful function, like
flagellar motility, when all the requisite pieces come together. Never
knowing what that useful function might be.
And so then you would expect lots of these little proto functions
around that might end up as being useful, which are not presently
killing the person.
Yet, again what we see, is that if you have a genetic defect, chances
are you will not survive without constant care.
So the system is not tolerant of half baked ideas, it needs full on
fully functional ideas, that work together with the entire system, and
don't cause a bug somewhere else in the code. Or else the person will
die. So to me that doesn't leave room for lots of trial and error when
all the data we have regarding genetic abnormalities, is that they are
detrimental to the organism.
Yet somehow, in one fell swoop, we went from ape to man?
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dfe2af7-b122-4a73...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> Now, if you don't have a problem accepting that much variation, without
>> any dramatic changes from one generation to another, in a mere 209
>> generations, how much change do you think there would be in 300,000
>> generations?
>>
>>
> In all of those dolphins, do they have a heart?
Like all other mammals, yes.
> Well where are the dolphins with a different heart, that works
> differently, like a rotary engine, works differently from a piston
> driven engine?
That would be the fish called a "dolphin". All mammals called Dolphins
have mammilian hearts.
> In all those dolphins and whales, do they have any other unique organs
> that some other members of that species, within that genome, do not
> have? Are there a few who have a different set of organs but look the
> same?
Again, if you want a creature like a whale that doesn't have the same
organs, try a shark.
>
> Why do all species within a genome, have the same parts, and those
> parts work the same way?
Becasue that's what the genome builds when assembling the body from the DNA
"blueprint".
> Why are there not examples of dolphins, who have a glorb,
> (hypothetical) which allows them to see in the dark.
They do, it's called "echolocation".
> Or why are there
> not some dolphins who are electric, like electric eels, within the
> dolphin species?
No particular reason, dolphin species seem to be successful enough without
it.
> Or any other type of difference in the human genome, which is
> similar.,
Because dolphins are descended from mammals, who didn't have those
differences.
>Why is the design, the same and why do we see one common
> ancestor, and is that common ancestor, the design mold ancestor?
Because that's how DNA works. Bodies are built by the 'blueprint' provided
by the DNA.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Jul 3, 4:27 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:33093f77-4a30-449c...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> > It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
> > >> > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
> > >> > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> > >> > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> > >> > understand it more easily.
>
> > >> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
> > >> further.
>
> > >> - Bob T.
>
> > > Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> > > humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> > > the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> > > design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> > > is the same throughout the entire species.
>
> > populations. Not all humans have the "exact same parts", as others have
> > pointed out. There are many variations in human form, including size,
> > shape, color, hair color and distrubtion, number of teeth, toes, fingers,
> > etc.
>
> Not variations of size and color of parts, variation in the design
> part list.
>
Hominoidea, and little enough within the entire primate order. Do you
think that you have any glands or organs that are "different in the
way they are designed and different in the way they work" from a
gorilla? Indeed, in comparing piston and rotary engines, you seem to
want to find -- within a single species -- a level of difference that
would normally distinguish, not different species or genera or
families or orders or classes, but different phyla or kingdoms.
Evolutionary theory does not imply that sort of drastic, saltational
change.
>
> As an example, the human body has a heart and lungs, and liver and
> spleen. Where are the examples of a human body that is different in
> the way it is designed and different in the way it works? I am not
> talking about small differences in parts, like if we say, that a Chevy
> has one tyupe of stock spark plug, and a Ford has a larger or slightly
> different one, they both have spark plugs and they both have internal
> combustion motors. But the Mazda has a rotary engine. It still works
> and it is still a car, so where is the same type of design differences
> in human biology, where you have different designs?
>
You're talking about differences on the level of, e.g. the "inverted
retina" of the vertebrate eye vs. the "rightside-round" retina of the
cephalopod eye, or the different sorts of regulation of heartbeat in
chordates and molluscs. You're not talking about differences that
exist between, e.g. humans and lizards, much less the sort of
differences we would expect within a single species (please remember:
_X-Men_ comics are *not* a peer-reviewed journal of evolutionary
biology).
>
> And not just human biology, but in every single species, you do not
> find several different means to an end, in design, you find that every
> species has a mold, and all the members of that species follow that
> mold.
>
You find, indeed, that genera have a common mold, and families have a
somewhat more general common mold with, generally, a wider range of
modifications of that common mold, and that the same holds true for
higher taxa. This "nested hierarchy" of life is one of the strongest
lines of evidence for common descent with modification (evolution).
>
> Where is the variety that should result from random variations and
> random selection?
>
Now, about 80% of human beings have a plantaris tendon. This is a
tendon that, in (other) apes, connects to the foot bones and enables
them to clutch their feet into fists. In humans, it doesn't connect
to the foot bones, and in some humans is missing entirely. I suppose
this is the closest thing to what you have in mind that springs
immediately to mind. For the most part, the variety that results from
random variations and natural selection or genetic drift (not "random
selection") is seen in the phenomena that other posters have pointed
out: the variations in blood type (even in hemoglobin structure), in
the shapes and sizes of organs, in the color of eyes, hair, and skin,
in varying resistance to various diseases, etc. Really drastic
mutations would almost certainly wreck an organ or system, and prove
lethal; this is why evolutionary theory typically speaks of the
accumulation of small, incremental changes rather than drastic
saltations.
>
> If it is a matter of trial and error, and not intelligent design, then
> surely you don't think that in every case, there is only one solution
> to every problem in nature.
>
No, certainly not: observe the various manners in which the vertebrate
forelimb is modified to form wings in pterosaurs, birds, and bats.
Look at the differences between the "box-camera" eyes of cephalopods
and vertebrates. But within lower taxa, and certainly within species,
you're likely to find only minor variants of a common solution to any
particular problem: different solutions have to be evolved separately
from ancestors that didn't already face that problem or have a
solution to it (as birds and bats evolved from separate nonflying
ancestors).
>
> And since we know there must be more than one solution to every
> problem in nature which might give rise to natural selection, why do
> we not see any variety, but instead see one mold?
>
As noted, at the level of multicellular anatomy, any novel structures
would arise as minor variants in existing organs: you wouldn't see a
completely different way of functioning such as you request. At the
biochemical level, it may be that some such variation exists: too
little is known about the full extent of genetic variation in humans
and the effects of these genes to be sure. In the bacterium _E.
coli_, there are many different forms of penicillin resistance that
have arisen in the lab, so this species demonstrates what you want:
variety rather than a single solution to a problem. _E. coli_, of
course, breed much faster than humans and there's much less problem
keeping an experimental population of many millions of them: I think
you could not lock millions of humans into a giant petri dish for
thousands of generations to see what different traits evolved.
>
> > > One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> > > be some variation in design.
> > > But there is none.
>
> > Try going to your local mall, and watch the people walking past you. You
> > will see quite a bit of variation. For even more, go to you local Wal Mart
> > at 2 AM.
>
> Do they all have a heart, all have lungs, and interchangeable parts if
> we had the technology to transplant everything?
>
Again, that doesn't particularly distinguish them from ring-tailed
lemurs, or even from pigs.
>
> Then they are all the same design from a design mold aren't they?
>
If you wish to say that we and gorillas are, sure.
>
-- [snip of rest]
>
-- Steven J.
rick_...@hotmail.com
> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well man is part of nature, and cars are evolving by intelligent
design, and they also have horns.
What we do not see, are any cars evolving by themselves without
intelligent design.
Dana Tweedy
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b66d239-0ac1-4c62...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
snip
>>
>> Sex. You have probably heard of it.
>>
>
> Yes I see horny people, but no people with horns.
> Although, there are probably some deformed horned people out there.
In the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia, there is a life cast of a person with
a horn on her forehead.
>
> And yes, scientists have modified crops, but haven't they just spliced
> DNA and used existing DNA?
Yes, do you think that scientists just whip up any old DNA? in GM crops,
the genes inserted are for a particular purpose, so they scientist have to
know that the gene does.
> Has anyone created any new code?
New code is created with each new mutation.
>Or are
> they merely using function calls, like a toolset?
> Is anyone, or is nature, writing any new functions?
Nature writes new code with each mutation.
>
> I don't think we see very much variety in design, although we see lots
> of variation within design parameters.
The first three words of your last sentence are most approprate. There is
a great deal of variety in nature, but species are constrained by their
genome to be within a particular set of characteristics. If a population
of organisms goes outside that genome, they are a new species.
>
> Just because people speak of intelligent design, does not mean they
> are talking about instantaneous spontaneous creation.
That's exactly what most IDists mean.
>
> There are people who talk about intelligent design in the same way
> people attribute it to nature. That you need to write code to get
> something to work.
Nature seems to do fine on it's own.
>
> The difference being nature has no mind, and so how could it see
> anything, at all, beyond, what molecular processes see, which is
> positive charge, negative charge, covalent bonding, simple opportunism
> such as a heavy hydrogen atom can fit into a hydrogen slot, simple
> molecules can come together to create complex molecules, how do you
> get from that, to an eye that works and has 30 centers in the brain
> related to sight?
A step at a time. Seriously, that's how evolution works, a step at a time.
You may ask how can you walk from New York to Los Angeles? The answer's
the same: A step at a time. Nature doesn't have to see where it's
going, it just goes.
> One piece at a time? One accident at a time?
Yes, basically. Natural selection adds the non random direction to the
steps.
> One random chance at a
> time? If there are a billion ways to do something wrong and one way to
> do something right, then it makes sense that the enzymes want to
> replicate DNA exactly with as little variation as possible, which
> reduces dramatically, you r chances of variety from which to choose
> from.
DNA just does the reproducing. We see the "winning" combinations, and the
losers don't make it.
>
> So then, you have to wait for a mistake to get through the safeguards,
> then you have to hope, that it will lead to some useful function, like
> flagellar motility, when all the requisite pieces come together.
Yes, but you must realize that 'mistakes" are happening all the time, and
any time a useful 'mistake" is produced, it ratchets one one more step.
The "flagellar motility" arguments assume that the only use for a flagella
is for motility. That a flagella can be co opted from another system
doesn't seem to be recognized.
> Never
> knowing what that useful function might be.
It doesn't have to "know". If a useful function occurs, it gets used, no
matter what the purpose might be. If a flagella that was once part of the
excretory system is altered to produce movement, that's great, but the
bacterium didn't know it needed to move.
> And so then you would expect lots of these little proto functions
> around that might end up as being useful, which are not presently
> killing the person.
Yep, that's it.
> Yet, again what we see, is that if you have a genetic defect, chances
> are you will not survive without constant care.
That depends on the "defect". If that "defect" is that you can run
faster, or hold your breath longer, or climb higher, it's not so bad..
> So the system is not tolerant of half baked ideas, it needs full on
> fully functional ideas, that work together with the entire system, and
> don't cause a bug somewhere else in the code.
Those "defects" that cause a "bug" get culled out, by natural selection.
You don't see the descendants of people with fatal mutations.
> Or else the person will
> die.
Yep, and many people do. Everyone who had a fatal mutation died without
producing offspring.
> So to me that doesn't leave room for lots of trial and error when
> all the data we have regarding genetic abnormalities, is that they are
> detrimental to the organism.
Not all genetic abnormalites are detrimental. Those that are don't leave
offspring. Those of us who are alive had ancestors who lived long enough
to breed.
> Yet somehow, in one fell swoop, we went from ape to man?
Humans are still apes. It wasn't "one fell swoop" how humans evolved from
other ape populatons, but one step after another bloody step...
DJT
SortingItOut
> On Jul 3, 4:56 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 3:16 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On 2008-07-03, rick_so...@hotmail.com <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>>> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> [snip]
> > >>>> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
> > >>>> yet.
> > >>> Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
> > >>> Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
> > >>> lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
> > >>> organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
> > >>> physiology design differs within that group.
> > >>> As a starting point for discussion.
> > >> Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
>
> > >> Mark
>
> > > I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
> > > look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
>
> > > and all dolphins will follow this mold?
>
> > dolphins tend to get called dolphins. Now, amongst the 40 or so species
> > of dolphin, there is significant variation. Which species in particular
> > were you thinking of?
>
> > You look a bit like your parents and a bit like your siblings. We don't
> > have any problem identifying you as the same species. You look a bit
> > less like your cousins, and a bit less than that like your second
> > cousins. Your 209th cousins (according to the creationists) include
> > everyone on the planet, including black africans, asians and Tasmanian
> > aboriginies. You're still the same species, but people have been able to
> > come up with arguments to the contrary. None of them look that much
> > different to their parents, or to their siblings.
>
> > any dramatic changes from one generation to another, in a mere 209
> > generations, how much change do you think there would be in 300,000
> > generations?
>
> In all of those dolphins, do they have a heart?
> differently, like a rotary engine, works differently from a piston
> driven engine?
Why is it that you expect such radical differences co-existing within
the same species? What is it about what you learned about the science
of evolution that would lead you to believe this should happen. I'm
not a biologist, but after reading about this stuff for over 20 years,
I've never been inspired to go down this path you're on.
Consider humans and chimps. Do you see the radical design changes
between humans and chimps that you are expecting to see within human
populations? Do humans and chimps have completely different hearts?
If not, doesn't that seem significant to you? Doesn't that signal to
you that maybe it takes many more generations for these changes to
slowly develop? Humans and chimps are fairly similar, yet cannot
interbreed (as far as I know). There is also an ancestral human
species that would not be able to interbreed with modern humans, and
this species is probably even more similar to humans than chimps are.
Why would we expect that species to have a completely different heart
design?
> In all those dolphins and whales, do they have any other unique organs
> that some other members of that species, within that genome, do not
> have? Are there a few who have a different set of organs but look the
> same?
>
> Why do all species within a genome, have the same parts, and those
> parts work the same way?
> Why are there not examples of dolphins, who have a glorb,
> (hypothetical) which allows them to see in the dark. Or why are there
> not some dolphins who are electric, like electric eels, within the
> dolphin species?
> Or any other type of difference in the human genome, which is
> similar., Why is the design, the same and why do we see one common
rick_...@hotmail.com
Lets wander down that path together shall we?
Where do genomes come from?
> Consider humans and chimps. Do you see the radical design changes
> between humans and chimps that you are expecting to see within human
> populations? Do humans and chimps have completely different hearts?
> If not, doesn't that seem significant to you? Doesn't that signal to
> you that maybe it takes many more generations for these changes to
> slowly develop? Humans and chimps are fairly similar, yet cannot
> interbreed (as far as I know). There is also an ancestral human
> species that would not be able to interbreed with modern humans, and
> this species is probably even more similar to humans than chimps are.
> Why would we expect that species to have a completely different heart
> design?
>
What we have is DNA, and from that all variation of species exists.
And you know that DNA has billions of bits of encoded information, and
from that, all life gets its instructions.
RNA is much simpler, and the proteus, much more complicated.
So the changes that exist such as the genes which can be turned off
and on, are all there within that code.
So then if you have a mutation, you have some new code.
Well in order to get the flagellar motility function, you need 10,000
codons, well then what are the simple odds that you will get a 2,000
word essay by mere chance?
If you make a computer program, that generates 2,000 letters from the
alphabet, how many times would you have to generate letters, until you
got a meaningful sentence?
And now then, how many times would you have to generate letters until
you got a meaningful essay?
And now then, how many times would you have to generate letters until
you got the essay, that is the flagellar motiity function?
Of all the sentences in all the world, you need a complete perfect
2,000 word essay, to get, the flagellar motility function, and so ok,
thats one little flagellar motility function, and the body has a
gazillion little systems, such as enzymes and cell walls and blood
cells and chemicals and glands and organs and a brain, and eyes and a
nervous system, and each of those, requires its own little essay.
But that exists in DNA and you only have to turn on and off switches
to get functionality.
Well where did that DNA come from with all that functionality, ready
to be turned in the variety of life?
It evolved from RNA?
Thats like saying a sentence can evolve into the encyclopedia
Britanica.
And you say, yes the odds of that are extreme, but it happened!
No it didn't.
Thats code that someone wrote.
Vernon Balbert
I cannot imagine anybody with any intelligence actually believing this.
Cars do not reproduce. If they do, please show me one. If they can't
replicate, then they can't evolve, can they?
--
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
Rusty Sites
>> It doesn't mean the components didn't do something else before they
>> became part of the flagellar system.
>>
>
> Well thats true but the actual motility is not there, unless the
> complete system is in tact. So to say it is a pathway, to me, just
> sounds very much like a useful ploy, to suggest that random variation,
> is not random, because we do not see random variations,
Please. Mutation rates have been closely studied.
> random
> variations would be detrimental to the organism as there is a billion
> ways to do something wrong and perhaps one way to do it right.
>
> But then who designs these pathways?
Nobody. That's why they don't look designed.
> And well why would there be
> pathways, and how does a body, decide then there is a need and then
> design a method to fill that need, using genetic information?
It doesn't. Lamarckism has been out for a long time.
>
> And I will suggest there is a need for a gland that secretes aspirin,
> and it would be advantageous, to have that gland, as most people take
> aspirin at some point.
You don't always get what you want and sometimes not even what you need.
>
> But to create a gland that secretes aspirin, you would have to know
> about dosages, and also about the side effects to the stomach, and so
> then is it all trial and error, in developing that gland, where many
> many people will die but some will survive, and then all will have
> that gland? When the organism can survive without it, but it is
> advantageous to have it.
Perhaps you are projecting. Your theory calls for magic poofing so you
expect other people's theories to be capable of magic poofing as well.
>
> Another example is the horn that appears on a person's head and it
> becomes a dominant gene
Do you know what a dominant gene is? You shouldn't use terms when you
don't know their meaning.
> and the children have it and it looks nice and
> become prestigious to have it, and so people want to mate with the
> horned ones and so 2 million years from now people have this nice
> attractive looking horn, and the first individual to have it is the
> common ancestor.
Look into peacock tails.
>
> So why don't we see this in progress anywhere in the world, where some
> people have some unique trait,
Compare Africans, Asians, and Europeans.
John Wilkins
Well it doesn't mean he learned how old the universe was back then...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > It has become painfully obvious that in order to preserve the theory
>> > of evolution so it can continue to be taught properly in schools, some
>> > work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
>> > possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
>> > understand it more easily.
>>
>> I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
>> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
>> further.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>>
>
>Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
>humans have the exact same parts,
They don't.
> and the design of the human body, is
>the same, within 6.6 billion people,
We are the same species, but there is still quite a wide range of
features.
> and there are no variations in
>design at all,
There are.
> that is to say that the way in which the body functions
>is the same throughout the entire species.
>
>One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
>be some variation in design.
>But there is none.
Wrong.
>
>And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
>found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
>population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
>design?
They don't.
>
>And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
>processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
>different in design. And then show where those differences are,
>because there are none of those either.
>
>Then perhaps you could show how what we call genetic defects, could in
>any way shape or form, be seen as an improvement made by evolution.
>
>When all the data we have suggests that if you stray, from the design,
>such as with the genetic code, you will get deformities, and genetic
>disease, rendering the person less suitable for his or her
>environment, not better adapted to his or her environment.
>
>So in order to change the human, you need to change the genetic code.
>And changes to the genetic code, result in severe disabilities and
>disease,
Wrong.
>because the human body is a complex interrelated system, and
>it is common sense, that if two people with genetic defects have
>children, they will pass those defects on to their children.
Define genetic defects?
>Yet we do still do not see any people out there with a different
>design.
>
>How is that?
Your basic premise is wrong.
--
Bob.
SortingItOut
I don't see how any of this addresses the questions I asked you or
supports your ideas about what you expect to see.
Why do you expect the variation within a species to be greater than
the variation we see between different species?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 3, 3:50 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 7:27 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 3:16 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 2008-07-03, rick_so...@hotmail.com <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > >> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> [snip]
>>
>> > > >> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
>> > > >> yet.
>>
>> > > > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
>> > > > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
>> > > > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
>> > > > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
>> > > > physiology design differs within that group.
>> > > > As a starting point for discussion.
>>
>> > > Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
>>
>> > > Mark
>>
>> > I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
>> > look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
>>
>> Because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
>> > and all dolphins will follow this mold?
>>
>> There is no decision involved. All dolphins are descended from a
>> common ancestor.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>>
>
>
>Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
>designs with differing physiology?
>
>Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
>species?
>
>If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
>then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
>that we know what DNA is. I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
>crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
>can we see them?
You already can - look at the differences in modern dogs.
--
Bob.
Richard Smol
There is no evidence for that.
> Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
> species?
There is no "design mold". You should really try to understand that.
> If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
> then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
> that we know what DNA is. I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
> crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
> can we see them?
We have. It's called breeding.
RS
SortingItOut
> > It doesn't mean the components didn't do something else before they
> > became part of the flagellar system.
>
> Well thats true but the actual motility is not there, unless the
> complete system is in tact. So to say it is a pathway, to me, just
> sounds very much like a useful ploy, to suggest that random variation,
> is not random, because we do not see random variations, random
> variations would be detrimental to the organism as there is a billion
> ways to do something wrong and perhaps one way to do it right.
Do you have any data to back up this billion-to-one ratio, or are you
exaggerating for effect?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 3, 4:42 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:447f092e-e735-4840...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Jul 3, 3:50 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> > > Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
>>
>> The Rete Mirable for one
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rete_mirabile
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > Mark
>>
>> >> > I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
>> >> > look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
>>
>> >> Because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>>
>> >> > Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
>> >> > and all dolphins will follow this mold?
>>
>> >> There is no decision involved. All dolphins are descended from a
>> >> common ancestor.
>>
>> >> - Bob T.
>>
>> > Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
>> > designs with differing physiology?
>>
>> Because there isn't any evidence of two common ancestors. Dolphins and
>> other whales have the same physiology.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
>> > species?
>>
>> There isn't a "design mold", there is a genome, and every species contains
>> variation.
>>
>
>Ok so where are the Mazda rotary engines in the human genome?
>
>Where are the different workable designs within one genome?
>
>Where are the humans with a different parts list?
>
>Case in point, the Founder Effect.
>
>If you have a small group of interbreeding people, they have a higher
>degree of polydactyly
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly
>
>As is the case within Amish populations. And we know that polydactyly
>leads to other more serious disorders and is often accompanied by
>mental retardation and epilepsy.
>
>So then the concept that the mold of a species came from a small
>select group, is challenged by the data which suggests that any small
>group which interbreeds, has a smaller chance of survival and a
>greater chance of deformity and health problems.
>
>So then how is it, that one design is present in the human genome?
>That we have an interchangeable parts list and there are billions of
>different parts?
>
>Why are there no rotary engine type of differences within the human
>genome?
>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Because they do not breed.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 3, 5:21 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 11:02 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 3:50 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 2, 7:27 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 3, 3:16 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On 2008-07-03, rick_so...@hotmail.com <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >> <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> [snip]
>>
>> > > > > >> The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
>> > > > > >> yet.
>>
>> > > > > > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
>> > > > > > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
>> > > > > > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
>> > > > > > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
>> > > > > > physiology design differs within that group.
>> > > > > > As a starting point for discussion.
>>
>> > > > > Can you think of an organ that you don't share with a dolphin?
>>
>> > > > > Mark
>>
>> > > > I'm not that knowledgeable to know the differences but why do they all
>> > > > look alike, and why are they all from the design mold?
>>
>> > > Because they are all descended from a common ancestor.
>>
>> > > > Who is it, that one point decides ok, this is the mold for a dolphin,
>> > > > and all dolphins will follow this mold?
>>
>> > > There is no decision involved. All dolphins are descended from a
>> > > common ancestor.
>>
>> > > - Bob T.
>>
>> > Why not two common ancestors or a bunch of equally valid dolphin
>> > designs with differing physiology?
>>
>> In fact, some species arise from hybridization of two species.
>> Particularly in plants. Allopolyploidization is the fancy term.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why is there but one design mold, for every species, which defines the
>> > species?
>>
>> First you need to understand that "dolphin" is not a species, but a
>> group of related species. So asking that question wrt dolphins makes
>> no sense. Dolphins closest cousins, of course, are whales. And
>> dolphins and whales share a good chunk of what you consider a "mold".
>>
>> > If the process by which you get different designs, is modified DNA,
>> > then probably we have already made lots of new animals I suspect, now
>> > that we know what DNA is. I suppose we have been bashing up DNA like
>> > crazy the way nature does to make some new animals of our own. When
>> > can we see them?
>>
>> Most evolutionary change involves fixation of alternate alleles at
>> selectively neutral sites.
>
>So we have a common ancestor, and so now billions of generations
>later, here we are. In one person, we will say, by some fluke of
>nature they develop an improvement to the genome, through natural
>selection after a strand of DNA is hit by a cosmic ray.
>Now then they develop a very good horn on the top of their head and
>doctors don't remove it, and if that person person has offspring it
>will develop that horn because it ends up creating a dominant gene for
>this marvelous horn and it looks nice. So then how does that person
>now become the common ancestor so that 2 million years from now
>everyone will have that horn?
Him, and his descendants, just keep on breeding.
--
Bob.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
about science". Thank you.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
LSR
> garbage)
In your case it clearly wasn't taught properly, or you just didn't
understand it.
--
LSR
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 3, 3:36 am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 9:27 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 2:11 am, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > [snip]
>>
>> > > The marathon started yesterday and you don't even have your running shoes on
>> > > yet.
>>
>> > Well lets back back to basics then, so I can get my running shoes on.
>> > Just give me a short list of examples in nature, in any species, where
>> > lets say 30% of the population within that species, has a different
>> > organ or gland than the others in that species, and a brief on how the
>> > physiology design differs within that group.
>> > As a starting point for discussion.
>>
>> Look all this up on getafukingeducationyouimbecile.com
>>
>> No one owes you answers to your nitpicking questions. It's a waste of
>> time and you won't listen or remember anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>
>Is it a sign of intelligence to insult people?
When they act very stupidly - sure.
>Is it a sign of intelligence to be rude and evasive of simple honest
>questions?
I don't think they are honest questions.
>Do you have an education?
It is becoming clear that you don't.
>Is that why you are being rude and not adding to the discussion with
>any constructive input?
>Here is a simple honest question...
>
>If it is estimated to take trillions and trillions of years for
>evolution to happen on the mechanism for bacterial flagellar motility,
>how long would it take for mankind to develop a gland that could
>excrete acetacylic acid? (aspirin)
>
>"There are many examples of what Behe describes as irreducibly complex
>biosystems.
All of which have been refuted - at least one of them in open court.
> However, the most famous of these is likely the bacterial
>flagellar motility system. The flagellum is so famous and so commonly
>used by intelligent design advocates that Miller refers to it as the
>"poster child" of the intelligent design movement - and rightly so.
>The flagellar motility system is quite impressive indeed. Consider
>that the flagellar system, in particular, requires the services of
>about 50 genes - including the genes for the sensory apparatus (turns
>the flagellum clockwise or counterclockwise at a greater or lesser
>rate depending on the environment) and the genes needed to code for
>proteins that assist in building the flagellum (about 40 structural
>proteins total). The total number of fairly specified (specifically
>arranged for minimum function) codons of DNA needed to code for the
>flagellar motility system, at minimum, is well over 10,000 codons.
>That's like a good-sized 2,000-word essay. Without this minimum in
>place, in its entirety, the motility function of the flagellum cannot
>be realized to any useful degree of functionality.
But each part does have alternative roles.
> In short, when it
>comes to the producing flagellar motility, a sizable minimum
>structural threshold is required and this requirement is "irreducible"
Refuted.
>if one wishes to maintain flagellar motility.
>
>http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html
>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Evolution.
>
>
>> Consider humans and chimps. Do you see the radical design changes
>> between humans and chimps that you are expecting to see within human
>> populations? Do humans and chimps have completely different hearts?
>> If not, doesn't that seem significant to you? Doesn't that signal to
>> you that maybe it takes many more generations for these changes to
>> slowly develop? Humans and chimps are fairly similar, yet cannot
>> interbreed (as far as I know). There is also an ancestral human
>> species that would not be able to interbreed with modern humans, and
>> this species is probably even more similar to humans than chimps are.
>> Why would we expect that species to have a completely different heart
>> design?
>>
>
>What we have is DNA, and from that all variation of species exists.
Correct.
>
>And you know that DNA has billions of bits of encoded information, and
>from that, all life gets its instructions.
Well, more or less correct.
>
>RNA is much simpler, and the proteus, much more complicated.
>
>So the changes that exist such as the genes which can be turned off
>and on, are all there within that code.
Mmmm. No, not quite.
>So then if you have a mutation, you have some new code.
>Well in order to get the flagellar motility function, you need 10,000
>codons, well then what are the simple odds that you will get a 2,000
>word essay by mere chance?
It is not mere chance.
>
>If you make a computer program, that generates 2,000 letters from the
>alphabet, how many times would you have to generate letters, until you
>got a meaningful sentence?
Not very long.
>
>And now then, how many times would you have to generate letters until
>you got a meaningful essay?
That would depend on the controlling program.
>
>And now then, how many times would you have to generate letters until
>you got the essay, that is the flagellar motiity function?
That is not generated at random, it evolved.
>
>Of all the sentences in all the world, you need a complete perfect
>2,000 word essay, to get, the flagellar motility function, and so ok,
>thats one little flagellar motility function, and the body has a
>gazillion little systems, such as enzymes and cell walls and blood
>cells and chemicals and glands and organs and a brain, and eyes and a
>nervous system, and each of those, requires its own little essay.
>
>But that exists in DNA and you only have to turn on and off switches
>to get functionality.
>
>Well where did that DNA come from with all that functionality, ready
>to be turned in the variety of life?
>
>It evolved from RNA?
>
>Thats like saying a sentence can evolve into the encyclopedia
>Britanica.
>And you say, yes the odds of that are extreme, but it happened!
>No it didn't.
>Thats code that someone wrote.
You are, either deliberately or through ignorance, spouting complete
nonsense.
--
Bob.
Rolf
<rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be6e1bf4-a1f7-46f9...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 4:27 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > <rick_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> > > Well Bob, perhaps you could explain to me then, how it is, that all
> > > humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> > > the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> > > design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> > > is the same throughout the entire species.
> >
That is just becuse that is the best posssible solution found uder the given
conditions. Evolution does not converge towards an ideal solutikn absed on
waht an engineer might consider the best. Insteasd, it makes do with
whatever resources are available. Much as you would do if sent into the
Amazonas to build a house.
> > Obviously you've never observed the diversity that exists in human
> > populations. Not all humans have the "exact same parts", as others
have
> > pointed out. There are many variations in human form, including size,
> > shape, color, hair color and distrubtion, number of teeth, toes,
fingers,
> > etc.
> >
>
> Not variations of size and color of parts, variation in the design
> part list.
>
[snip]
> And not just human biology, but in every single species, you do not
> find several different means to an end, in design, you find that every
> species has a mold, and all the members of that species follow that
> mold.
>
Exactly, because that's the 'best' solution that could be found. This is an
important point, and obe which is well documetnet in biology. We humans, and
the same holds for all other species on the planet, are not, I repeat NOT
examples of optimal or ideal desdign. We are cludges, the result of a
process dependent on slection - NATURAL SELECTION, from what is available.
And what is available, that is what chance provide - not what some super
intelligent designer makes available.
If you can take a metaphor without making too much of it: It is as if yoe
weere making cars in your garage. For parts, you wuld have to rely on what
was dumped at your door. You might be able to make a car, but you might also
have to make do with 14" wheels at the front and 16" wheels at the rear.
Now, if cares were self-replicating like biological life, its offspring
wpoudl likewise be born with the different front vs. rear wheels.
But - and here is how evolution works in real life: Since the blueprint for
a baody is stored in DNA, if random, and here is a case where the use of
random is warranted, if random changes in DNA - and such random changes DO
occur, allt he time, they are unavoidable (so tell us why the Intelligent
Designer did not design a 100% stable, uncorruptible DNA?) - random changes
migtt cause a change in DNA that made a car or cras being born with the same
size front and rear wheels.
Now, if that were an advantage in such a way that cars with all four wheels
of the same size were more succesful, mor succcesful at finding partners,
copulating and raising baby cars sith the same wheels, in due time the
entire populastion might end up with such wheels because they were a huge
success in the market.
Get the gist?
> Where is the variety that should result from random variations and
> random selection?
>
Selection is not, repeat, NOT random! That's all you need to study for now.
Come back when you have understood that, and the consequences.
> If it is a matter of trial and error, and not intelligent design, then
> surely you don't think that in every case, there is only one solution
> to every problem in nature.
>
> And since we know there must be more than one solution to every
> problem in nature which might give rise to natural selection, why do
> we not see any variety, but instead see one mold?
>
Don't you see the variety? How many species do you think we have on the
planet? How many are extinct? How many have we yet not found?
> >
> >
> > > One would expect, that if random processes were at work, there might
> > > be some variation in design.
> > > But there is none.
> >
There are random processes at work, that's why not two people are similar.
> > Try going to your local mall, and watch the people walking past you.
You
> > will see quite a bit of variation. For even more, go to you local Wal
Mart
> > at 2 AM.
> >
>
> Do they all have a heart, all have lungs, and interchangeable parts if
> we had the technology to transplant everything?
>
> Then they are all the same design from a design mold aren't they?
>
>
You see the difference between a monkey and a man, don't you? That is one
example of how random processes and factors AND Natural Selection (NOT
random selection. If it is random, it is not selection) result in variation.
> >
> >
> > > And then could you explain to me, that if some evolution were to be
> > > found, that was in progress, how that could change the entire
> > > population, so that all people would once again, all have the same
> > > design?
> >
> > Evolution is not 'progress' it's change. Change happens in
populations
> > over generations, as one genome gets replaced by another. There's
always
> > going to be variation in any population, so there is no "same design".
> >
>
I would think that a rotary pump would be both simpler, more reliable, more
efficient and better than the four-chambered pump with valves and muscular
contraction that we do have. Why do we see all those less sub-optimal
designs in nature? Because evoluton works only with what is avilable, not
what might be a better solution. Plenty of examples are found, you might
have fun trying to leran about some of them. There are several in your own
body, and one quote obvious one in the male reproductive system. The fact of
which is a strong argument in favour of the ToE, but which is quiter
meaningless if not downright stupid, if we should think our body is the
result of Intelligent Design.
Why didn't Ford build the A-Ford with injection and electronic ignition
instead of a carburettor and the primitve coil and interruptor/distributor
ignition? Because he used what was avilable, what else could he do?
In the same way, evolution uses what is available, what else is there to do?
> Adaptation is not the same as design. Changes in skin color or height
> or weight or size these are not design differences, these are
> variations within a design. This is flexibility of design within a
> mold.
>
> >
> >
> > > And further perhaps you could show some examples of evolutionary
> > > processes which neither help nor hurt the person, but merely make it
> > > different in design.
> >
> > Sure. Redheads, Blondes, Brunettes. Tall people, short, people,
average
> > height. Dark skin, light skin, "olive" skin. People with epicantic
folds
> > in their eyes. Blue eyes, brown eyes, hazel eyes.
> >
>
> A red corvette is still a corvette. A blue corvette is still a
> corvette, but a mazda, with a rotary engine, is not the same as a
> corvette, with a piston driven engine. Yet they are both cars.
>
> Where in all of nature do we see any design differences like this
> within species?
>
As already pointed out, we only see the possible differences, not
differences of the type that an uninformed, ignorant critc may conjure in
his mind.
>
Ilas
news:O46dnfBdqvEI1PHV...@bresnan.com:
>
> <rick_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2c7c0132-863c-4416...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Jul 3, 3:36 am, Will in New Haven
>> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
> snip
>
>>> Look all this up on getafukingeducationyouimbecile.com
>>>
>>> No one owes you answers to your nitpicking questions. It's a waste
>>> of time and you won't listen or remember anyway.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Will in New Haven
>>
>> Is it a sign of intelligence to insult people?
>
> No, but it's not a sign of intelligence to misrepresent a scientific
> theory.
Of all the inane creationist arguments, this is the one I find most
fascinating, when they define the theory of evolution in their own wildly
inaccurate way, use that false definition to demand that evolution produce
results that would actually go against anything that the ToE predicts or
even allows, and then claim that this "failure" somehow means the ToE is
false. It really makes me wonder if the people who do this realise just how
dishonest they're being, or whether they genuinely believe they're on to
something.
Ernest Major
<nob...@this.address.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> On Jul 3, 2:34 am, Shane <remarcsdNOS...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:52:03 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > > On Jul 3, 1:37 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>> work must be done to clarify basic principles, and to show wherever
> > >>> possible, how evolution works in lay mans terms so that people can
> > >>> understand it more easily.
>
> > >> I think the first thing you personally need to do is learn about
> > >> evolution yourself, so that you do not embarass yourself in public
> > >> further.
>
> > >> - Bob T.
>
> > > humans have the exact same parts, and the design of the human body, is
> > > the same, within 6.6 billion people, and there are no variations in
> > > design at all, that is to say that the way in which the body functions
> > > is the same throughout the entire species.
>
>
> > For a start, humans come in two basic varieties which vary
> > quite significantly in their parts, design and function.
>
> > Then there are those that have differences that are normally
> > referred to as racial differences, the epicantic fold, the
> > predominance of black hair in the oriental reces, skin
> > pigmentation etc.
>
> > Next we have the differences that affect individuals in
> > many/all populations, dwarfism, albinoism, Downs syndrome,
> > variation in height and other measuremnts and body/organ
> > shape--remember you said everyone has the exact same
> > parts--variation in hair colour and distribution, Sickle
> > cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, polydactylism, cojoined twins
> > that share limbs and/or organs....
>
> > Do I need to keep on going?
>
> You are talking about adaptation, and I am talking about design.
How do you tell the difference between adaptation and design? Give a
specific example and defend it for the design differences between
chimps and humans. Bone for bone, organ for organ we match chimps.
You even have about as many hair folicles on your body as a chimp.
Some people consider that they are lucky if they only produce small or
very fine body hairs. Some people are pretty hairy, but they have
more surface area to cover than a normal chimp. They used to think
that humans had a small section of the brain that other apes did not
have, but that turned out not to be true. There is just size and
shape variation of all the parts.
Just walk through a shopping mall and see all the size and shape
variation among humans.
Now, how does that fit in with whatever alternative that you are
thinking of?
What is your alternative and what is the evidence for it?
There is plenty of evidence for biological evolution. You would
discover a lot of it if you just weren't interested in blowing smoke
and building a pile of straw.
You obviously will not find the same quality of evidence supporting
your alternative or you wouldn't have to blow smoke, you could just
present that evidence along with your alternative.
Have you ever wondered why that isn't an option among like minded
people such as yourself? Why are the creationist intelligent design
perps running the bait and switch scam on their own creationist
supporters instead of giving them the science if intelligent design
that they claimed to have to teach to students in the public schools
for well over a decade. What is the new creationist scam? Why is the
dishonest switch scam just smoke like you are blowing, that doesn't
even mention that creationism or intelligent design ever existed? If
you had an honest argument, why didn't you start off with it instead
of smoke?
Before you bury yourself deeper in disaster you should answer those
questions honestly to, at least, yourself.
SNIP:
Ron Okimoto