A Challenge for the Anti-Evolutionists
Devils Advocaat
with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
organelles and bacteria.
Ray Martinez
All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
science.
Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
actually is).
The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
Ray
Will in New Haven
While of course you are a moron, you are correct that DA's "proof"
only functions if one accepts the ToE, or at least materialistic
naturalism, in the first place. As someone dumber than a pile of shit,
you are completely free to ignore the evidence that nature and
nature's god has given us. Not only that, she will not punish you for
it. Except for practical consequences of being so fucking stupid, you
will not suffer for ignoring her clear evidence. You will wind up in
the same place as everyone else, hating the fact that no one is
suffering and no one is burning in hell, as you wished them to.
--
Will in New Haven
Spotted Owl
And he decided to model a cell organelle on an existing bacterium
because...?
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > organelles and bacteria.
> All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> science.
Provide a better alternative.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Boikat
> On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > organelles and bacteria.
>
> All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> science.
>
As opposed to the biased conclusion of creationists that "Goddidit!"?
> Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> actually is).
>
As opposed to your a-priori conclusion of "Goddidit!"?
> The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
How do you go about testing that objectively?
Just a reminder from years ago, when asked if "goddidit" was central
to you soon-to-be-published(=NEVER) demolision of the ToE, and you
said emphatically, "Yes!", all pretense of a scientific anything
resembling a remote chance at "demolishing" of the ToE went flying out
the window at the speed of light.
Boikat
Ray Martinez
wrote:
If you possessed a thinking brain you would have deduced my rebuttal
as challenging the existence of evolutionary mechanisms (cause)
producing the similarity (alleged effect of evolutionary
relationship). Devil's Advocaat ASSUMES similarity to support a
conclusion that evolution has occurred. The assumption is passed-off
as evidence for what is in dispute (evolutionary relationship). The
same is more commonly known as "begging the question." No one disputes
that similarities exist. What is in dispute is the cause. Unless you
can show causation the alleged effect of evolutionary relationship is
an illusion at best.
Ray
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
that works to explain why my tire went flat, too. god did it.
so it explains nothing
>Ray
Prof Weird
>
> > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > organelles and bacteria.
Ray evades and postures with :
> All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> science.
There is no reason anyone should EXPECT mitochondria and a bacterium
to be similar. The OBSERVATION that they are is best explained by
evolution, since it relies on known mechanisms and does NOT require
the undetectable intervention of unknowable beings to somehow do stuff
sometime in the past for some reason.
'biased definition of science' = 'does not conform to Ray's delusions'
> Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> actually is).
Nope - that would be gibbering creotardism. Of which you are the High
Priest.
> The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
And the 'best explanation' of differences : work of one Divine
Mastermind.
The 'best explanation' of anything beyond Ray's willfully limited
understanding and comprehension : work of one Divine Mastermind.
DA asked for an alternative RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC explanation for the
observed similarities between mitochondria and bacteria - you vomited
up an irrational pseudo explanation.
How, EXACTLY, did you 'determine' there was only one Mastermind and
not many ?
How, EXACTLY, did you 'determine' this Mastermind corresponds to your
interpretation of ancient morality tales ?
Shouldn't you be working on your world-shattering paper/book instead
of showcasing your staggering arrogance and festering ignorance before
a world-wide audience ?
Hint : a useful explanation defines an unknown in terms of what is
known; blubberings about the actions of unknowable beings is trying to
define an unknown in terms of an unknowable. A waste of time at best.
Ray Martinez
Neither 'Creationism or Evolution are scientific: both offer
interpretations of the same scientific evidence.' I doubt that you
have enough brain power to understand the fact objectively. (Science
and scientific is the evidence itself; once it is interpreted the same
becomes tainted with a worldview bias.)
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Jun 1, 4:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > organelles and bacteria.
>
> Ray evades and postures with :
>
> > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > science.
>
> There is no reason anyone should EXPECT mitochondria and a bacterium
> to be similar. �The OBSERVATION that they are is best explained by
>
Again: All I wish to point out is that identification of similarity (=
effect) is ASSUMED to support an evolutionary relationship. We do not
know that "A" generated "B" absent establishment of cause. Mere
discovery of similarity does not prove that "A" generated "B." The
same is an assumption.
Assumption is not evidence. Learn the difference, Darwinists.
Ray
[....]
Caranx latus
If you say so, Ray. On the other hand, any system that incorporates
new findings as they develop and adapts positively to those findings
is inherently more objective and far more likely to be correct than a
system that either dogmatically denies or obfuscates those findings.
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Again: All I wish to point out is that identification of similarity (=
>effect) is ASSUMED to support an evolutionary relationship. We do not
>know that "A" generated "B" absent establishment of cause. Mere
>discovery of similarity does not prove that "A" generated "B." The
>same is an assumption.
>
>Assumption is not evidence. Learn the difference, Darwinists.
>
you assume it's caused by something. a rock falling from a cliff is
caused by something
OR you could be a creationist and say demons did it. of course, that
led nowhere for 2000 years...but they like it!
Prof Weird
Too bad for you that there IS a known cause - descent with
modification.
As this is a KNOWN process, predictions from it can be tested - making
it far superior to your deranged howlings about supernatural beings
somehow doing stuff for some unknowable reason.
Your 'alternative explanation' of the OBSERVED similarity is what ?
Pure chance ? Unknowable whim of an unknowable being ? A centuries
old world-wide conspiracy to make you look like a drooling imbecile ?
Most sane and rational folk will go with the known and demonstrated
process of 'descent with modification' to explain the similarites
between mitochondria and Rickettsia until a demonstrably better
hypothesis is presented.
> Assumption is not evidence. Learn the difference, Darwinists.
Screamed the zealot that 'thinks' peculiar interpretations of ancient
morality tales are valid science ... !
And the 'evidence' that a Divine Mastermind exists, and did what you
ASSUME He/She/It/They did is what again ?
The assumptions in science lead to TESTABLE hypotheses; the plaintive
whinings of creotards and IDiots lead nowhere.
Andrew
Can you provide a rational scientific explanation
(without using fantasy), for a 'naturalistic only'
origin of -any- bacteria, complete with all of
their organelles?
Thanks.
Frank J
How? When?
How do you account for the fact that both "evolutionists" and *anti-
evolutionists* who also think that it's the work of "one Divine
Mastermind," agree that common ancestry fits the evidence - not
"assumptions" - better than the *equivalent alternative* (two or more
independent abiogenesis events)?
> Ray
johnetho...@yahoo.com
When do you plan to stop offering your assumptions as evidence/proof
of your views?
Frank J
Note that your only reply so far from an evolution-denier* pulled the
usual bait-and-switch between (1) *how* they arose and (2) whether
some designer was the ultumate cause.
* I only checked TO, but would bet the ranch and the dog that the same
applies to ATC.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Jun 1, 2:02�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 3:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
> > > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
> > As opposed to the biased conclusion of creationists that "Goddidit!"?
>
> > > Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> > > actually is).
>
> > As opposed to your a-priori conclusion of "Goddidit!"?
>
> > > The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
>
> > How do you go about testing that objectively?
>
> > Just a reminder from years ago, when asked if "goddidit" was central
> > to you soon-to-be-published(=NEVER) demolision of the ToE, and you
> > said emphatically, "Yes!", all pretense of a scientific anything
> > resembling a remote chance at "demolishing" of the ToE went flying out
> > the window at the speed of light.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Neither 'Creationism or Evolution are scientific:
At least you're half right - creationism is not scientific.
> both offer
> interpretations of the same scientific evidence.'
However evolution offers an actual theory whose predictions match what
we observe. Creationism just says "I think this happened". There is no
theory and no predictions.
> I doubt that you
> have enough brain power to understand the fact objectively. (Science
> and scientific is the evidence itself; once it is interpreted the same
> becomes tainted with a worldview bias.)
>
> Ray
Translation: Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot no matter
what.
Michael Young
I don't know exactly what you were hoping to accomplish with a
challenge like this. The answer for any kind of "why" question for
Creationists is ubiquitously "because God made it that way." That's
how everything is conveniently explained.
Nashton
Will in New Haven, psychological help for your anger issues are just a
phone call away.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
William Morse
Let's start with the basics. Do you agree that there is excess
reproduction, i.e. that organisms produce more young than ultimately
survive?
Simple yes or no question.
Devils Advocaat
I asked for an alternative rational scientific explanation.
And what did you give me?
Nothing better than "goddidit".
Not exactly rational.
Not exactly scientific.
Not exactly an explanation.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:d1e72270-3559-46e8...@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
You missed the point of my opening post.
Try again.
Devils Advocaat
I am hoping that there is an anti-evolutionist out there that can
offer a rational scientific explanation for the striking similarities
shared by the bacteria called Rickettsia prowazekii and the
mitochondria found in eukaryotic cells.
A simple enough thing, but maybe too much to hope for.
Boikat
> On Jun 1, 2:02�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 3:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
> > > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
> > As opposed to the biased conclusion of creationists that "Goddidit!"?
>
> > > Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> > > actually is).
>
> > As opposed to your a-priori conclusion of "Goddidit!"?
>
> > > The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
>
> > How do you go about testing that objectively?
>
> > Just a reminder from years ago, when asked if "goddidit" was central
> > to you soon-to-be-published(=NEVER) demolision of the ToE, and you
> > said emphatically, "Yes!", all pretense of a scientific anything
> > resembling a remote chance at "demolishing" of the ToE went flying out
> > the window at the speed of light.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Neither 'Creationism or Evolution are scientific:
Then you are an idiot.
> both offer
> interpretations of the same scientific evidence.'
Yet only one seems ope to independant verification and testing.
> I doubt that you
> have enough brain power to understand the fact objectively.
Like you do? You're a joke.
> (Science
> and scientific is the evidence itself; once it is interpreted the same
> becomes tainted with a worldview bias.)
Yup, you are a joke, and aside fro the retatded claim the evolution is
not scientific in nature, you failed to address my point: How do you
test "Goddidit" and come to an objective conclusion that "Goddidit"
without relying on the a-priori conclusion that "Goddidit"?
Care to answer, or are you going to simply ignore or evade the
question?
Boikat
Desertphile
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > organelles and bacteria.
> > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > science.
Science is supposed to be biased. Unbiased science is known as
"religion."
> > Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> > actually is).
> >
> > The best explanation of similarity: work of one divine mastermind.
Where did your gods come from, Ray? Oops! They must have evolved!
> While of course you are a moron, you are correct that DA's "proof"
> only functions if one accepts the ToE, or at least materialistic
> naturalism, in the first place. As someone dumber than a pile of shit,
> you are completely free to ignore the evidence that nature and
> nature's god has given us. Not only that, she will not punish you for
> it. Except for practical consequences of being so fucking stupid, you
> will not suffer for ignoring her clear evidence. You will wind up in
> the same place as everyone else, hating the fact that no one is
> suffering and no one is burning in hell, as you wished them to.
There is just as much evidence monsters from outer space created
life on Earth as for Rays gods doing it.
Desertphile
Yes.
> Thanks.
Desertphile
Nobody here has ever claimed evolution is scientific, Ray: it is
not. Evolutionary theory is.
> Ray
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Devils Advocaat" wrote:
>>>
>> > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
>> > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
>> > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
>> > organelles and bacteria.
>>
>> Can you provide a rational scientific explanation (without
>> using fantasy), for a 'naturalistic only' origin of -any- bacteria,
>> complete with all of their organelles?
>>
>
> Try again.
You are trying to postulate that the similarities are evidence of common
evolutionary ancestry. But my point is that you have no rational scientific
explanation, without using fantasy, for a 'naturalistic only' origin of either
eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells which are irreducibly complex requiring
DNA and organelles.
Andrew
cassandra
Some anit-evolutionists say that the similarities are mere
correlelation and coincidence. Others say that the similarities as
explained as well by ID. Perhaps their criticisms could be answered
by also looking at the differences between mitochondria and R.
prowazeki. If this symbiosis occurred so long ago, I would expect
their phenotypes to diverge in ways consistent with evolutionary
theory and unexplainable by ID or coincidence.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:81113f12-f387-4ca1...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Let me make it simpler for you.
Mitochondria are organelles within eukaryotic cells.
Rickettsia prowazekii is a prokaryotic cell, or bacterium.
Both are remarkably similar in their genomes and structures.
If they DON'T share a common ancestor, what other rational scientific
explanation is there for their similarities?
As you can see I have postulated nothing.
But I have asked for an alternative explanation.
So try again.
cassandra
<snip to point>
> You are trying to postulate that the similarities are evidence of common
> evolutionary ancestry. But my point is that you have no rational scientific
> explanation, without using fantasy, for a 'naturalistic only' origin of either
> eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells which are irreducibly complex requiring
> DNA and organelles.
It's too ironic for someone whose argument relies on an unexplained
intelligent designer to accuse others of using fantasy. In fact, your
point is based on the fantasy that naturalistic forces can't evolve
irreducibly complex systems. Even allowing that IrC is a meaningfull
metric, you offer no evidence whatever for such an assumption.
JTEM
cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some anit-evolutionists say that the similarities
> are mere correlelation and coincidence.
How many? And, yeah, a percentage is acceptable.
And, oh; how did you ascertain this number?
>�Others say
....
cassandra
How many what?
Reddfrogg
> On Jun 1, 1:40�pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
> > > actually is).
>
>
> > only functions if one accepts the ToE, or at least materialistic
> > naturalism, in the first place. As someone dumber than a pile of shit,
> > you are completely free to ignore the evidence that nature and
> > nature's god has given us. Not only that, she will not punish you for
> > it. Except for practical consequences of being so fucking stupid, you
> > will not suffer for ignoring her clear evidence. You will wind up in
> > the same place as everyone else, hating the fact that no one is
> > suffering and no one is burning in hell, as you wished them to.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> If you possessed a thinking brain you would have deduced my rebuttal
> as challenging the existence of evolutionary mechanisms (cause)
> producing the similarity (alleged effect of evolutionary
> relationship).
Actually, Ray, what produces the similarity is heredity. Do you really
want to argue that heredity doesn't produce similarity?
>Devil's Advocaat ASSUMES similarity to support a
> conclusion that evolution has occurred.
again, it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion from the evidence.
Similarity is a result of heredity. That's an observation that's
beyond any reasonable doubt.
>The assumption is passed-off
> as evidence for what is in dispute (evolutionary relationship).
again, relationships are known to occur due to heredity. We don't
have any examples of similarity due to a "mastermind" in biology.
Your job is to produce any evidence showing that a "mastermind" is at
work, and to show how this "mastermind" produces similarity.
> The
> same is more commonly known as "begging the question."
No, "begging the question" would be ascribing design to an "invisible
designer" without any evidence of such a being.
> No one disputes
> that similarities exist.
Because the mechanism that produce similarity is known.
> What is in dispute is the cause. Unless you
> can show causation the alleged effect of evolutionary relationship is
> an illusion at best.
The "causation" of similarity is already well known. It's caused by
shared genes. This "effect of evolutionary relationships" is known
to be the result of related organisms sharing genetic material.
What evidence do you have that similarity is the result of a a
"mastermind"?
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Jun 1, 2:02�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 3:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
> > > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
>
> > > actually is).
>
>
>
>
> > Just a reminder from years ago, when asked if "goddidit" was central
> > to you soon-to-be-published(=NEVER) demolision of the ToE, and you
> > said emphatically, "Yes!", all pretense of a scientific anything
> > resembling a remote chance at "demolishing" of the ToE went flying out
> > the window at the speed of light.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Neither 'Creationism or Evolution are scientific:
Well, you are half right. Creationism is not scientific. Evolution
is a scientific theory.
> both offer
> interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
No, they don't. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the
evidence. Creationism is a religious belief, that is held despite the
evidence. Creationism is not based on evidence, and it's not an
interpretation of evidence. It exists without evidence.
>I doubt that you
> have enough brain power to understand the fact objectively.
Ray, you have no idea what objectivity is. You seem to think your
own bizarre ideas are objective, and you reject objective means of
investigation such as science.
>(Science
> and scientific is the evidence itself; once it is interpreted the same
> becomes tainted with a worldview bias.)
The whole purpose of science is to avoid this "worldview bias".
Science depends on the evidence, and the evidence alone, not on
personal beliefs. That's why it's been much more successful than
other methods before it.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Jun 1, 2:10�pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
>
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
> > to be similar. �The OBSERVATION that they are is best explained by
> > evolution....
>
> Again: All I wish to point out is that identification of similarity (=
> effect) is ASSUMED to support an evolutionary relationship.
Wrong again, Ray. Similarity is a prediction of a hereditary
relationship, ie, common descent. Finding this similarity does
support the idea of evolution.
> We do not
> know that "A" generated "B" absent establishment of cause.
However the cause is known. The relationship is due to common
descent, ie both came from the same ancestor, which is why they share
the same genetic make up. Evolution explains this. Creationism
does not.
In any case, it's usually not a matter of "A generates B" but "A
and B are related". Both A and B might be descended from C.
> Mere
> discovery of similarity does not prove that "A" generated "B."
Correct. However, it does "prove" that A and B share a recent common
ancestor. The process of evolution can be observed, and such
relationships are testable, and verifiable.
What evidence do you have that similarity is due to a "mastermind"?
> The
> same is an assumption.
No, "the same" is a conclusion one may draw from the evidence.
>
> Assumption is not evidence. Learn the difference, Darwinists.
Odd that you are giving this "lesson". Your own claim is that your
own assumption of "design" is evidence that a designer exists.
"Darwinists" know that an assumption is not evidence. You, on the
other hand have not learned that.
DJT
Ernest Major
<andrew....@usa.net> writes
natural selection and other processes does not depend on a "naturalistic
only" origin of the last common ancestor. Spontaneous abiogenesis is a
working hypothesis; common descent is an inference confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent (i.e. a
fact).
The latter remains true regardless whether life on earth originated by
spontaneous abiogenesis, supernatural abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis,
global panspermia, local panspermia, directed panspermia, accidential
panspermia, or some other possibility that has escaped my attention.
--
alias Ernest Major
Darwin123
> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> organelles and bacteria.
God made man in His own image. Similiarly, God made "Rickettsia
prowazekii" in the image of His mitochondria.
This also explains all the "junk DNA" in the chromosome. God has a
lot of junk DNA in his chromosome. Since God never evolved from a
lower form, natural selection never eliminated the junk DNA in his
chromosome.
I am surprised the Creationists haven't come up with this sort of
explanation before. Any homology can be explained by animals and
plants being created partially in His image.
Will in New Haven
> On Jun 1, 1:40�pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
> > > actually is).
>
>
> > only functions if one accepts the ToE, or at least materialistic
> > naturalism, in the first place. As someone dumber than a pile of shit,
> > you are completely free to ignore the evidence that nature and
> > nature's god has given us. Not only that, she will not punish you for
> > it. Except for practical consequences of being so fucking stupid, you
> > will not suffer for ignoring her clear evidence. You will wind up in
> > the same place as everyone else, hating the fact that no one is
> > suffering and no one is burning in hell, as you wished them to.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> If you possessed a thinking brain you would have deduced my rebuttal
> as challenging the existence of evolutionary mechanisms (cause)
> producing the similarity (alleged effect of evolutionary
> conclusion that evolution has occurred. The assumption is passed-off
> as evidence for what is in dispute (evolutionary relationship). The
> same is more commonly known as "begging the question." No one disputes
> that similarities exist. What is in dispute is the cause. Unless you
> can show causation the alleged effect of evolutionary relationship is
> an illusion at best.
It could be a fact without my being able to show the cause. So it
isn't, "an illusion at best." One might say it is "an illusion at
worst." And you should know about illusions, you benighted follower of
Gene Scott's god.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:81113f12-f387-4ca1...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Devils Advocaat" wrote:
>
> >> > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> >> > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> >> > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> >> > organelles and bacteria.
>
> >> Can you provide a rational scientific explanation (without
> >> using fantasy), for a 'naturalistic only' origin of -any- bacteria,
> >> complete with all of their organelles?
>
> > You missed the point of my opening post.
>
> > Try again.
>
> You are trying to postulate that the similarities are evidence of common
> evolutionary ancestry.
They are. What explanation do *you* have for this (and other) evidence
which can be tested using the tools of science?
> But my point is that you have no rational scientific
> explanation,
What is irrational about the explanation that organelles originated as
independent organisms? That's what the evidence shows. What
explanation do *you* have for this (and other) evidence which can be
tested using the tools of science?
> without using fantasy,
In what way is a testable explanation based on the evidence a fantasy?
> for a 'naturalistic only' origin
i.e. scientific
How can any scientific explanation *not* be "naturalistic only"?
> of either
> eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells which are irreducibly complex
You mean that they have "interlocking complexity". You should use the
term coined by evolutionary theorists to refer to the condition rather
than the term coined by non-scientists.
> requiring
> DNA and organelles.
In what way is something predicted by evolutionary theory evidence
against a scientific explanation for the origin of the eukaryote cell?
RF
>
> Andrew
Devils Advocaat
> On Jun 1, 2:10�pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:13�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
>
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
> > to be similar. �The OBSERVATION that they are is best explained by
> > evolution....
>
> Again: All I wish to point out is that identification of similarity (=
> know that "A" generated "B" absent establishment of cause. Mere
> discovery of similarity does not prove that "A" generated "B." The
> same is an assumption.
>
> Assumption is not evidence. Learn the difference, Darwinists.
>
>
> [....]
And yet you still cannot present an alternative rational scientific
explanation for the similarities of the mitochondria in eukaryotic
cells and those bacteria called Rickettsia prowazekii.
Why is that Ray?
Will in New Haven
You want your neighbors to burn in hell and you are worried about MY
anger issues.I haven't ever condemned anyone to burn forever.
Or killed anyone in forty years.
J. J. Lodder
God, being infinite, of course has every sequence in his DNA.
He is as just mighty
as the decimals of pi,
Jan
Desertphile
Great explanation, and it makes everything fit perfectly. The god
had a penis and a vagina, presuimably so that it could fuck itself
(which is an excellent start for a California religion).
bpuharic
wrote:
why are these irreducibly complex? where's your proof that they are?
>
>
>Andrew
>
josephus
> On Jun 1, 12:58 pm, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
>> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
>> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
>> organelles and bacteria.
>
> evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> science.
>
> Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> actually is).
>
> The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
>
>
"assumption" means Ray makes up stuff. He does not even understand the
question and is trying to baffle us with assumption and definitions.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that ain't so. -- Josh Billings
Caranx latus
Ray can't possibly answer a question of that detail. Gene Scott isn't
around any longer to tell him what to say.
Devils Advocaat
> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> organelles and bacteria.
It is curious how the phrase "common ancestor" creates such a knee-
jerk reaction in the anti-evolutionists.
Think about genealogy instead of evolution.
If I met a stranger who said two of his great great grandparents lived
in the same town as mine did, and we discovered that they lived on the
same street, in the same house, at the very same time, and had the
same names as mine, would it make sense to deny that the stranger and
I shared a common ancestry?
Of course it wouldn't make sense to deny such an obvious relationship.
And if, as so many creationists insist, no matter how much bacteria
change they are still bacteria, it wouldn't make sense to deny that
there would be a genealogical relationship between all those different
bacteria, would it?
So if you find something that resembles a bacterium, would you not try
and work out its genealogical relationship to other bacteria? Of
course you would.
And mitochondria are remarkably like bacteria from the genus
Rickettsia, specifically the species Rickettsia prowazekii.
So, I say again if the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a
common ancestor with the bacteria called Rickettsia prowazekii, then
gregwrld
> On Jun 1, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
>
> > > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
>
> > There is no reason anyone should EXPECT mitochondria and a bacterium
> > to be similar. The OBSERVATION that they are is best explained by
> > evolution....
>
> Again: All I wish to point out is that identification of similarity (=
> effect) is ASSUMED to support an evolutionary relationship. We do not
> know that "A" generated "B" absent establishment of cause. Mere
> discovery of similarity does not prove that "A" generated "B." The
> same is an assumption.
>
> Assumption is not evidence. Learn the difference, Darwinists.
>
> Ray
>
> [....]
So how does God do it, Ray? And don't
forget to include the evidence...
gregwrld
Mike Lyle
>>
>> Assumption is not evidence. Learn the difference, Darwinists.
>
> So how does God do it, Ray? And don't
> forget to include the evidence...
>
--
Mike.
Mark Isaak
> On Jun 1, 12:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
>> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
>> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
>> organelles and bacteria.
>
> All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports evolutionary
> relationship, protected by a biassed definition of science.
You forgot to add that that assumption has led to unobvious predictions,
which were later shown true. In other words, it has proven useful.
Creationism has never been useful; there has never been anything good one
could say about it.
> The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
That explanation also explains why kangaroos and pronghorn antelopes are
so incredibly similiar. Except they aren't. Oops. Explanation fails.
Care to try again?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Puppet_Sock
> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> organelles and bacteria.
You are making a mistake asking for rational discussion
from creationists. The answer to nearly any question about
"how" is goddidit. There's no logic or rationality involved.
From a scientific point of view, you are also posing things
incorrectly. You are posing this as an incredulity statement.
"Don't believe me? Well, if you can't explain it then..."
This is not how science works.
When evidence is ambiguous, science makes do with it.
Until different theories can be distinguished by evidence,
we go along with keeping different theories around. Until
and unless they become distinguisable, and only then
do we throw out the theories that don't fit. Maybe we
throw out all the theories we have used till then, and
that's pretty exciting times in science. Maybe we toss
one or two of the competitors and fewer remaining theories
will continue to be viable. That too is exciting times.
Because we learn things. We learn "it's not that way."
At no point in the scientific method is there a "well, I can't
think of anything else" step. It's a poor move for the
creationists to make. It's also a poor move for we scientists
to make.
Socks
R.Dean
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:13:21 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 1, 12:58 pm, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
>>> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
>>> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
>>> organelles and bacteria.
>
>> evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
>> science.
>
>
The need for better alternative is unnecessary. A theory can be
discredited based upon it's own internal incongruity or disparity:
in the same sense as a defense attorney can poke holes in the
prosecution's case with offering an alternative explanation.
>
R.Dean
> On Jun 1, 4:13 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 12:58 pm, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
>>> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
>>> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
>>> organelles and bacteria.
>>
>> All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
>> evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
>> science.
>>
>> actually is).
>>
>>
>
>
> How do you account for the fact that both "evolutionists" and *anti-
> evolutionists* who also think that it's the work of "one Divine
> Mastermind," agree that common ancestry fits the evidence - not
> "assumptions" - better than the *equivalent alternative* (two or more
> independent abiogenesis events)?
>
I've never believed in chiropractors, but one of my relatives has
suffered with sciatic nerve pain for several years. She has gone
to MDs and specialist. A shot in her back, at first gave her some
measure relief. Due to her age surgery was not advised. But the pain
never goes away. In desperation, she went to a chiropactoric Doctor.
After two months, going twice a week, her pain is completely gone.
Did this doctors minulapations help her? What does the evidence say?
Nothing! But she is without pain. There are at least three(3)
alternative explanation:
1)She would have gotten better anyway. The doctor didn't do it.
2)The last MD's treatment she went to had a delayed benefit.
3)She's not being honest. She still hurts, but is not complaining.
But she walks straight, bends, does housework now.
But it's not unreasonable to suggest that the Chiropractor did it.
>
>
>
>
>> Ray
>
>
John S. Wilkins
Another option: Confirmation bias.
Chiropractic manipulation may have helped in this case, but also in
other cases causes harm. I know of a number of cases in which
chiropractic is implicated in paralysis, long term pain, torn
musculature and even death. It is not based on sound knowledge or even
trial and error experience. It is a dogma that is employed even when
experience tells us it is wrong.
Many things may help in individual cases but be dangerous in the longer
term. Frankly, I would rather use a physiotherapist and not take the
risks. Chiropractors, who are referred to here by the medical profession
as "back-cractors", are dangerous and should never be allowed near a
child or elderly person.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Devils Advocaat
> On Jun 1, 3:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > organelles and bacteria.
>
> You are making a mistake asking for rational discussion
> from creationists. The answer to nearly any question about
> "how" is goddidit. There's no logic or rationality involved.
I see no harm in encouraging rational debate.
>
> From a scientific point of view, you are also posing things
> incorrectly. You are posing this as an incredulity statement.
> "Don't believe me? Well, if you can't explain it then..."
> This is not how science works.
I am not posing this as a statement of incredulity.
I am asking what rational scientific alternative process could have
given rise to the similarities that are shared by eukaryotic
mitochondria and the bacteria known as Rickettsia prowazekii.
And if such a process exists then those who oppose the theory of
evolution should be able to present it.
>
> When evidence is ambiguous, science makes do with it.
> Until different theories can be distinguished by evidence,
> we go along with keeping different theories around. Until
> and unless they become distinguisable, and only then
> do we throw out the theories that don't fit. Maybe we
> throw out all the theories we have used till then, and
> that's pretty exciting times in science. Maybe we toss
> one or two of the competitors and fewer remaining theories
> will continue to be viable. That too is exciting times.
> Because we learn things. We learn "it's not that way."
>
> At no point in the scientific method is there a "well, I can't
> think of anything else" step. It's a poor move for the
> creationists to make. It's also a poor �move for we scientists
> to make.
> Socks
Are you referring to yourself in the third person, because I am not a
scientist not by any stretch of the imagination.
But I have studied matters scientific for many years.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" wrote in messagenews:81113f12-f387-4ca1...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Devils Advocaat" wrote:
>
> >> > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> >> > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> >> > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> >> > organelles and bacteria.
>
> >> using fantasy), for a 'naturalistic only' origin of -any- bacteria,
> >> complete with all of their organelles?
>
> > You missed the point of my opening post.
>
> > Try again.
>
> You are trying to postulate that the similarities are evidence of common
> evolutionary ancestry. But my point is that you have no rational scientific
> explanation, without using fantasy, for a 'naturalistic only' origin of either
> eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells which are irreducibly complex requiring
> DNA and organelles.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you are still missing the point of my opening post.
Try again.
I haven't offered up any fantasy, but I have asked those who oppose
the theory of evolution to present a rational alternative scientific
explanation.
Klaus Hellnick
"we" is first person, plural.
Puppet_Sock
[snips]
> I see no harm in encouraging rational debate.
When I dream, I have a pony.
> > From a scientific point of view, you are also posing things
> > incorrectly. You are posing this as an incredulity statement.
> > "Don't believe me? Well, if you can't explain it then..."
> > This is not how science works.
>
> I am not posing this as a statement of incredulity.
>
> I am asking what rational scientific alternative process could have
> given rise to the similarities that are shared by eukaryotic
> mitochondria and the bacteria known as Rickettsia prowazekii.
>
> And if such a process exists then those who oppose the theory of
> evolution should be able to present it.
[snip]
Sigh.
Nope. You are not getting the point.
That *is* a statement of incredulity. "You can't come up with
an alternative, so..."
So nothing. That's not how science works. Those who think a
theory is wrong are *not* under any requirement to give an
alternative. Those who think a theory is wrong do *not* have
to give an alternative to support their claim. Giving such an
alternative has no relationship to the strength of the theory
they think is wrong.
Now, they *are* under requirement to give reasons for why they
think a theory is wrong. But "I've got an alternative" is not a
good reason for thinking a theory is wrong. Science works on
evidence from observation, and on logical inference.
What you ought to be asking is something along the lines of
"please state your evidence or logic reasons for thinking this
theory is wrong."
That has the potential to encourage rational discussion. If the
creationists can be teased into saying what they think is wrong
with a theory, and to do so in a logical and rational manner,
they might even see some of the problems with their position.
Chances are, they'll just fling themselves against the other
wall of the corner, but hey. You do what you can.
Socks
Perplexed in Peoria
> On Jun 24, 6:03 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [snips]
>> I see no harm in encouraging rational debate.
>
> When I dream, I have a pony.
>
>>> From a scientific point of view, you are also posing things
>>> incorrectly. You are posing this as an incredulity statement.
>>> "Don't believe me? Well, if you can't explain it then..."
>>> This is not how science works.
>>
>> I am not posing this as a statement of incredulity.
>>
>> I am asking what rational scientific alternative process could have
>> given rise to the similarities that are shared by eukaryotic
>> mitochondria and the bacteria known as Rickettsia prowazekii.
I don't understand why you think this example is particularly
challenging for a creationist. After all, the similarities
between man and monkey are MUCH greater than the similarities
between mitochondria and proteobacteria.
Creationists have absolutely no trouble fitting this kind of
observation into their worldview. Common design, they say,
is evidence of a common Designer, rather than evidence of
common descent as the evilushinists would have it.
(And if you are tempted to object that the hypothesis of
a common designer is not a *scientific* explanation, then
you flunk Rhetoric 101. You ain't going to convince your
own mother with that style of arguing.)
In fact, the specific example you have chosen - mitochondria
being degenerate symbiotic bacteria - is more of problem for
the ToE than for the ToC. Not a serious problem, but a
problem nonetheless. The thing is, the symbiotic theory of
the mitochondria is an exception to the usual nested-hierarchy
in the tree of life. The naive ToE predicts a perfect tree. The
ToC (if you can call it a "theory" - actually, it is not EVEN
a theory) is more lenient - the Creator could have set things
up as a perfect tree, but He also had the freedom to reuse
snippets of design from elsewhere in the tree - as He appears
to have done with mitochondria. Large-scale HGT is evidence
that goes on the creationist side of the scales - UNLESS there
is some "devil in the details" that just cries out for an
evolutionary explanation. If you had such details in mind,
maybe you should mention them.
John Harshman
> On 6/24/10 10:15 AM, Puppet_Sock wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 6:03 am, Devils Advocaat<mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> [snips]
>>> I see no harm in encouraging rational debate.
>>
>> When I dream, I have a pony.
>>
>>>> From a scientific point of view, you are also posing things
>>>> incorrectly. You are posing this as an incredulity statement.
>>>> "Don't believe me? Well, if you can't explain it then..."
>>>> This is not how science works.
>>>
>>> I am not posing this as a statement of incredulity.
>>>
>>> I am asking what rational scientific alternative process could have
>>> given rise to the similarities that are shared by eukaryotic
>>> mitochondria and the bacteria known as Rickettsia prowazekii.
>
> I don't understand why you think this example is particularly
> challenging for a creationist. After all, the similarities
> between man and monkey are MUCH greater than the similarities
> between mitochondria and proteobacteria.
I believe I do. It isn't the magnitude of the similarities so much as
the weirdness of a bacterium being the basis of our metabolism. The idea
of god designing a special bacterium just to do respiration for
eukaryotes is much more bizarre than his designing similar genomes for
humans an monkeys, which do after all have similar lifestyles. OK, the
creationist explanation for human/monkey similarity makes no sense. But
I've never seen a creationist even attempt to explain mitochondria.
> Creationists have absolutely no trouble fitting this kind of
> observation into their worldview. Common design, they say,
> is evidence of a common Designer, rather than evidence of
> common descent as the evilushinists would have it.
I agree that creationists have no trouble, but that's a reflection of
their abilities not to think rather than of the relative difficulty of
coming up with rational explanations. Obviously, they get through the
problem by jettisoning "rational". Still, we can grade their
explanations by amount of surface sense, or by how much thinking you
have to do to see the explanation as nonsense. And I think the mt thing
would win.
> (And if you are tempted to object that the hypothesis of
> a common designer is not a *scientific* explanation, then
> you flunk Rhetoric 101. You ain't going to convince your
> own mother with that style of arguing.)
How about if you object that a common designer doesn't explain anything,
because it's consistent with all possible observations? Mitochondria, no
mitochondria, mitochondria with eukaryote genomes, mitochondria with
feet, whatever.
> In fact, the specific example you have chosen - mitochondria
> being degenerate symbiotic bacteria - is more of problem for
> the ToE than for the ToC. Not a serious problem, but a
> problem nonetheless. The thing is, the symbiotic theory of
> the mitochondria is an exception to the usual nested-hierarchy
> in the tree of life. The naive ToE predicts a perfect tree. The
> ToC (if you can call it a "theory" - actually, it is not EVEN
> a theory) is more lenient - the Creator could have set things
> up as a perfect tree, but He also had the freedom to reuse
> snippets of design from elsewhere in the tree - as He appears
> to have done with mitochondria. Large-scale HGT is evidence
> that goes on the creationist side of the scales - UNLESS there
> is some "devil in the details" that just cries out for an
> evolutionary explanation. If you had such details in mind,
> maybe you should mention them.
Sure. This isn't just re-use of a fuel injector or whatnot; it's a whole
organism stuck into the middle of another organism. Instead of putting
in fuel injectors, god has miniaturized a whole car and stuck it under
your hood, just so you can have the fuel injectors on that car. Common
designer? Common lunatic, more like. He could easily have managed to
make eukaryotic cells capable of respiration if he'd wanted to. But he
didn't.
Sure, this contradicts a single tree of life if you think of it that
way. But why think of it that way? Is it a contradiction that your gut
flora has a different phylogeny from you? I don't think so. Of course
the connection is a bit more intimate, but that causes problems for
creationists. First, the mitochondrial phylogeny, once it's tied to a
eukaryote cell, agrees with the nuclear phylogeny. Endosymbiosis
explains why the tree is discordant before the event and condordant
after it. Second, the pattern of mitochondrial proteins encoded by
nuclear genes, which is different from taxon to taxon, makes perfect
sense under the endosymbiosis hypothesis, but makes absolutely no sense
under creationism.
Again, the only way creationists could "explain" mitochondria to their
satisfaction is by being satisfied with the mantra "common designer" and
resolutely avoiding any thought. As far as I know, none of them have
managed even that so far. (A quick web search does indeed find nothing
but nonsense and a failure to confront any evidence, though there are a
few lame explanations that reduce to "goddidit".)
Perplexed in Peoria
How about if the creationist politely asks whether Darwin's theory
of common descent and natural selection offers any explanation of
these things? Which of the observations listed above is
inconsistent with Darwin's theory?
I realize that the ToC explains almost nothing - well, I guess it
explains why the world's ecosystem is consistent with human life.
But the ToE doesn't really explain much either - and it frames
the question about the fit between mankind and the natural world
exactly backward from the way the ToC frames it. "The right
question", says the ToE, 'is why the human species is adapted to
the world around it - not why the world is right for man." An
uninformed neutral observer might consider that a cop-out.
>> In fact, the specific example you have chosen - mitochondria
>> being degenerate symbiotic bacteria - is more of problem for
>> the ToE than for the ToC. Not a serious problem, but a
>> problem nonetheless. The thing is, the symbiotic theory of
>> the mitochondria is an exception to the usual nested-hierarchy
>> in the tree of life. The naive ToE predicts a perfect tree. The
>> ToC (if you can call it a "theory" - actually, it is not EVEN
>> a theory) is more lenient - the Creator could have set things
>> up as a perfect tree, but He also had the freedom to reuse
>> snippets of design from elsewhere in the tree - as He appears
>> to have done with mitochondria. Large-scale HGT is evidence
>> that goes on the creationist side of the scales - UNLESS there
>> is some "devil in the details" that just cries out for an
>> evolutionary explanation. If you had such details in mind,
>> maybe you should mention them.
>
> Sure. This isn't just re-use of a fuel injector or whatnot; it's a whole
> organism stuck into the middle of another organism. Instead of putting
> in fuel injectors, god has miniaturized a whole car and stuck it under
> your hood, just so you can have the fuel injectors on that car. Common
> designer? Common lunatic, more like. He could easily have managed to
> make eukaryotic cells capable of respiration if he'd wanted to. But he
> didn't.
I'm sure you just forgot to explain why Natural Selection (unlike a
Deity, could not possibly have come up with a direct approach for
eukaryote respiration, and hence why the absence of such respiration
constitutes evidence for the ToE.
You know, everyone here, on both sides of the argument, seems to
think that "Here is how your theory is flawed" constitutes an
argument. It is not an argument. What you need, at minimum, is
"Here is a test that your theory fails, and here how my theory passes
the parallel test with flying colors."
> Sure, this contradicts a single tree of life if you think of it that
> way. But why think of it that way? Is it a contradiction that your gut
> flora has a different phylogeny from you? I don't think so. Of course
> the connection is a bit more intimate, but that causes problems for
> creationists. First, the mitochondrial phylogeny, once it's tied to a
> eukaryote cell, agrees with the nuclear phylogeny.Endosymbiosis
> explains why the tree is discordant before the event and condordant
> after it.
Bingo.
> Second, the pattern of mitochondrial proteins encoded by
> nuclear genes, which is different from taxon to taxon, makes perfect
> sense under the endosymbiosis hypothesis, but makes absolutely no sense
> under creationism.
Bingo again. Though, if I understand you, this is really the same
argument - you are just changing your choice of characters from
the sequence to the presence or absence of particular proteins in
particular genomes.
But even here, an OEC who imagines a series of special creations
in which the Creator chooses to adhere to the Sarawak law and to
formulate each new species as a small tweak of some existing species -
such a creationist would be no more surprised that my mitochondrial
genome resembles that of a chimp than he would be that my nuclear
genome resembles that of a chimp.
Is such a hypothetical OEC really an evolutionist? He accepts the
transmutation of species, but not the *natural* transmutation of
species. To be honest, I can't imagine why any theist would find
this kind of theory attractive - except maybe that it makes human
nature a direct (though temporally drawn out) result of God's
beneficence rather than a contingent product of chance.
> Again, the only way creationists could "explain" mitochondria to their
> satisfaction is by being satisfied with the mantra "common designer" and
> resolutely avoiding any thought. As far as I know, none of them have
> managed even that so far. (A quick web search does indeed find nothing
> but nonsense and a failure to confront any evidence, though there are a
> few lame explanations that reduce to "goddidit".)
And again, I don't see that symbiotic organelles add any rhetorical
punch to the evolutionist argument - except maybe to show that the
symbiotic theory is not a kluge grafted on to a failing theory to
handle unwelcome evidence, but rather cohabits with the rest of the
ToE quite nicely. That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
As far as I can tell, it is Wallace's Sarawak Law which provides the
best argument against the kinds of stubborn, but thoughtful,
creationists which I am postulating (against all evidence, I admit).
Not only did the Creator borrow design details from prior designs,
but He seems to have borrowed locally in both space and time. He
hasn't come up with a new dinosaur species within the past 60 million
years - has He forgotten how to create dinosaurs? He has come up with
some new marsupial species during that time frame, but He chose to
introduce them only in Australia and South America - was He powerless
to carry even the idea of a marsupial into the northern hemisphere?
At least not until the continents of North and South America fused
and the opossums moved north under their own power.
aganunitsi
wrote:
<omniposnip>
> As far as I can tell, it is Wallace's Sarawak Law which provides the
> best argument against the kinds of stubborn, but thoughtful,
> creationists which I am postulating (against all evidence, I admit).
> Not only did the Creator borrow design details from prior designs,
> but He seems to have borrowed locally in both space and time. He
> hasn't come up with a new dinosaur species within the past 60 million
> years - has He forgotten how to create dinosaurs? He has come up with
> some new marsupial species during that time frame, but He chose to
> introduce them only in Australia and South America - was He powerless
> to carry even the idea of a marsupial into the northern hemisphere?
> At least not until the continents of North and South America fused
> and the opossums moved north under their own power.
That argues against an omnipotent, omniscient intelligence in control
of evolution. But omnipotent, omniscient intelligence is an argument
against itself, so why bother? (You can't know everything and know
what it's like to be surprised - so you can't really know everything.)
There is the ID theory that refuses to make any specific claims about
the ID, so not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient. Ancient aliens
could visit earth every now and then to give specified complexity a
booster shot. They are powerful, but not all-powerful, so they gotta
work with the tools at hand.
The objections to ToE come down to motive - why are you opposed to it?
Did someone promise you an extremely valuable gift, such as
immortality, but it turns out that promise would be a lie if ToE were
true? Or is it really that evolution seems like too much complexity
too fast, in which case why God and not ancient aliens?
John Harshman
True, except for the feet part. But we could certainly imagine an
alternate history in which eukaryotes had evolved their own ability to
do cellular respiration, or in which some eukaryotes had done so and had
then become endosymbionts of other eukaryotes. The real point is that
what we see is easily explained by a simple historical scenario, but a
creationist scenario implies weird things about god. It's perfectly
obvious why evolution might result in such a thing, but bizarre that god
would do it. A cell that is designed from the beginning to do
respiration makes more sense.
> I realize that the ToC explains almost nothing - well, I guess it
> explains why the world's ecosystem is consistent with human life.
> But the ToE doesn't really explain much either - and it frames
> the question about the fit between mankind and the natural world
> exactly backward from the way the ToC frames it. "The right
> question", says the ToE, 'is why the human species is adapted to
> the world around it - not why the world is right for man." An
> uninformed neutral observer might consider that a cop-out.
Actually, wouldn't god be able to design an ecosystem that was
inconsistent with human life, and still have humans living in it?
Evolution, however, would never produce such a situation.
It isn't the absence of respiration that is evidence for evolution. It's
the presence of respiration in an endosymbiote. It appears that
respiration was invented once, based on a need to detoxify oxygen.
Natural selection uses what it gets, and endosymbionts came along.
Nobody says it couldn't conceivably have happened another way through
evolution, only that the way it did happen is hard to account for by
creation without supposing that god is a wacko.
> You know, everyone here, on both sides of the argument, seems to
> think that "Here is how your theory is flawed" constitutes an
> argument. It is not an argument. What you need, at minimum, is
> "Here is a test that your theory fails, and here how my theory passes
> the parallel test with flying colors."
The evolutionary scenario is simple and clear. The creationist scenario
is nonexistent, on purpose, I think.
>> Sure, this contradicts a single tree of life if you think of it that
>> way. But why think of it that way? Is it a contradiction that your gut
>> flora has a different phylogeny from you? I don't think so. Of course
>> the connection is a bit more intimate, but that causes problems for
>> creationists. First, the mitochondrial phylogeny, once it's tied to a
>> eukaryote cell, agrees with the nuclear phylogeny.Endosymbiosis
>> explains why the tree is discordant before the event and condordant
>> after it.
>
> Bingo.
>
>> Second, the pattern of mitochondrial proteins encoded by
>> nuclear genes, which is different from taxon to taxon, makes perfect
>> sense under the endosymbiosis hypothesis, but makes absolutely no sense
>> under creationism.
>
> Bingo again. Though, if I understand you, this is really the same
> argument - you are just changing your choice of characters from
> the sequence to the presence or absence of particular proteins in
> particular genomes.
No, it's a different argument. The point is that different taxa have
incorporated different mitochondrial genes at different times, and
that's evidence that gene transfer is indeed what's going on, rather
than god arbitrarily deciding during creation week that some
mitochondrial proteins should be encoded by the nucleus and others by
the mt genome.
> But even here, an OEC who imagines a series of special creations
> in which the Creator chooses to adhere to the Sarawak law and to
> formulate each new species as a small tweak of some existing species -
> such a creationist would be no more surprised that my mitochondrial
> genome resembles that of a chimp than he would be that my nuclear
> genome resembles that of a chimp.
Agreed. But such an OEC would be talking about a phylogeny that is
indistinguishable from common descent by any means whatsoever, right?
Humans and chimps would be tweaked versions of some 6mya primate. Oddly,
all the tweaks seem to have been done using changes that are
indistinguishable from the sorts of things that are observable as
mutations in current populations. I'm afraid this devolves into an
omphalos theory. (God also simulated the patterns of polymorphism and
coalescence one would see in real populations; he apparently made a
number of tweaked copies using different members of the old population
as templates.)
> Is such a hypothetical OEC really an evolutionist? He accepts the
> transmutation of species, but not the *natural* transmutation of
> species.
Actually, I took you to be talking about fiat creation based on
templates, in which case he wouldn't be an evolutionist, there being no
actual ancestry and descent. If you were talking about god introducing
particular mutations into particular existing gametes, then sure, that's
evolution. God is merely a special mutagen.
> To be honest, I can't imagine why any theist would find
> this kind of theory attractive - except maybe that it makes human
> nature a direct (though temporally drawn out) result of God's
> beneficence rather than a contingent product of chance.
And that's the appeal of theistic evolution right there.
>> Again, the only way creationists could "explain" mitochondria to their
>> satisfaction is by being satisfied with the mantra "common designer" and
>> resolutely avoiding any thought. As far as I know, none of them have
>> managed even that so far. (A quick web search does indeed find nothing
>> but nonsense and a failure to confront any evidence, though there are a
>> few lame explanations that reduce to "goddidit".)
>
> And again, I don't see that symbiotic organelles add any rhetorical
> punch to the evolutionist argument - except maybe to show that the
> symbiotic theory is not a kluge grafted on to a failing theory to
> handle unwelcome evidence, but rather cohabits with the rest of the
> ToE quite nicely. That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
Stupid and untrue cliche. Nor is endisymbiosis any sort of problem for
common descent. Neither is hybridization. It just makes the tree a
little more complicated.
I maintain that mitochondria are indeed a problem for creationists,
which is probably the prime reason they ignore them. If your car had
another car under its hood, then we could talk about intelligent design.
> As far as I can tell, it is Wallace's Sarawak Law which provides the
> best argument against the kinds of stubborn, but thoughtful,
> creationists which I am postulating (against all evidence, I admit).
> Not only did the Creator borrow design details from prior designs,
> but He seems to have borrowed locally in both space and time. He
> hasn't come up with a new dinosaur species within the past 60 million
> years - has He forgotten how to create dinosaurs?
[insert obligatory reference to birds as dinosaurs]
> He has come up with
> some new marsupial species during that time frame, but He chose to
> introduce them only in Australia and South America - was He powerless
> to carry even the idea of a marsupial into the northern hemisphere?
> At least not until the continents of North and South America fused
> and the opossums moved north under their own power.
I don't find it any weirder than that he used a template each time he
made a new species, in such a way as to construct a nested hierarchy.
But that's certainly an additional argument against the de novo creation
of templated species. Doesn't make an argument against the introduction
of particular mutations, though. Which were you really talking about?
Perplexed in Peoria
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>> On 6/24/10 1:58 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/10 10:15 AM, Puppet_Sock wrote:
Amen. The strongest evidence for the RM + NS theory is that (1) we
can see and measure RM happening today, (2) We can see by extrapolation
(from one generation to 1000 generations) that variation within a
species is simply the cumulative result of that RM process we see
operating today, and (3) by comparing the characteristics of
inter-species variation to the characteristics of intra-species
variation, we can see that they are essentially the same kind of
thing - after roughly another 100x extrapolation.
>> Is such a hypothetical OEC really an evolutionist? He accepts the
>> transmutation of species, but not the *natural* transmutation of
>> species.
>
> Actually, I took you to be talking about fiat creation based on
> templates, in which case he wouldn't be an evolutionist, there being no
> actual ancestry and descent.
I was talking about that. But whether there is "actual" ancestry or
not, there is a kind of virtual ancestry of one species for another
utilizing the notion of information source. So it would be very
difficult to distinguish this creative-cloning God from either
the mutagenic God or the totally aloof God using only the evidence
in the fossil record and the sequence databases.
My computer has another computer under the hood. Read up on RISC, CISC,
and microcode.
>> As far as I can tell, it is Wallace's Sarawak Law which provides the
>> best argument against the kinds of stubborn, but thoughtful,
>> creationists which I am postulating (against all evidence, I admit).
>> Not only did the Creator borrow design details from prior designs,
>> but He seems to have borrowed locally in both space and time. He
>> hasn't come up with a new dinosaur species within the past 60 million
>> years - has He forgotten how to create dinosaurs?
>
> [insert obligatory reference to birds as dinosaurs]
Doooohhh!
>> He has come up with
>> some new marsupial species during that time frame, but He chose to
>> introduce them only in Australia and South America - was He powerless
>> to carry even the idea of a marsupial into the northern hemisphere?
>> At least not until the continents of North and South America fused
>> and the opossums moved north under their own power.
>
> I don't find it any weirder than that he used a template each time he
> made a new species, in such a way as to construct a nested hierarchy.
> But that's certainly an additional argument against the de novo creation
> of templated species. Doesn't make an argument against the introduction
> of particular mutations, though. Which were you really talking about?
Templated de-novo. And yes, I see your point that if the Creator
chooses to limit Himself to directing mutations as His only
intervention, then it is inevitable that the fossil evidence will
conform to the Sarawak Law. So I am probably wrong that the Sarawak-law
evidence is inconsistent with all forms of creationism - at least if
you consider belief in theistic evolution to be a kind of creationism.
Hmmm. I hadn't noticed that our exchange was going to a.t.c. in
addition to t.o. Perhaps I should look in there and see what those
people think regarding the taxonomy of creationists we have been
discussing.
John Harshman
True if we allow for god to be replicatin3g entire populations rather
than individuals, and allowing normal evolution to operate between
tweaks, including the occasional fine transitions seen in the fossil record.
Not the same thing at all.
Let me know.
Perplexed in Peoria
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>> Hmmm. I hadn't noticed that our exchange was going to a.t.c. in
>> addition to t.o. Perhaps I should look in there and see what those
>> people think regarding the taxonomy of creationists we have been
>> discussing.
>
> Let me know.
>
Well, I went, I saw, and I ain't going back.
All alt.talk.creationism is divided into three parts.
1. Militant atheist idiots.
2. Militant creationist idiots
3. Trolls.
The third group is the most polite.
If we could convince Pagano, Martinez, bpuharic, and Rice to
shift to that newsgroup, it would raise the level of discourse
of both groups - a.t.c. and t.o. It is that bad over there.
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e650d078-ae33-400e...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 1, 2:02 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 3:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 12:58 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
> >
> > > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
> >
> > As opposed to the biased conclusion of creationists that "Goddidit!"?
> >
> > > Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> > > actually is).
> >
> > As opposed to your a-priori conclusion of "Goddidit!"?
> >
> > > The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
> >
> > How do you go about testing that objectively?
> >
> > Just a reminder from years ago, when asked if "goddidit" was central
> > to you soon-to-be-published(=NEVER) demolision of the ToE, and you
> > said emphatically, "Yes!", all pretense of a scientific anything
> > resembling a remote chance at "demolishing" of the ToE went flying out
> > the window at the speed of light.
> >
> > Boikat
>
> Neither 'Creationism or Evolution are scientific: both offer
> interpretations of the same scientific evidence.'
At least you're raising a good question: Let's say we do have two
competing hypotheses about some scientific evidence. What makes one
hypothesis "scientific" and the other not?
I view a hypothesis as "scientific" if it appeals to reason, evidence,
and only things that can be measured, experimented, and/or falsified.
A hypothesis does NOT need to completely account for "life, the
universe, and everything" to be scientific. It can be incomplete.
Dalton formulated his atomic theory, centuries before anyone would
actually see an atom.
We have a pretty good idea of the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy, even
though we can never see the stars at the opposite end of it.
Astronomers do a pretty good job, even though only one-trillionth of all
the stars in the Universe have been catalogued so far.
The ToE is like that. It doesn't account for every single generation of
every single life form between the first ones billions of years ago and
you and me.
How are you gathering evidence to support YOUR theory, Ray? If all
species sprang into existence by the will of a Creator and remained
immutable ever since, how could you ever hope to gather evidence to
prove that this happened? It's a one time event that happened so long
ago that we can't investigate it anymore.
So the book you're writing can't be viewed as scientific. It can be
viewed as philosophy.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a900ba7e-c956-4de6...@v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 1, 4:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 2:02 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 3:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jun 1, 12:58 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > > organelles and bacteria.
> >
> > > > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > > science.
> >
> > > As opposed to the biased conclusion of creationists that "Goddidit!"?
> >
> > > > Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> > > > actually is).
> >
> > > As opposed to your a-priori conclusion of "Goddidit!"?
> >
> > > > The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
> >
> > > How do you go about testing that objectively?
> >
> > > Just a reminder from years ago, when asked if "goddidit" was central
> > > to you soon-to-be-published(=NEVER) demolision of the ToE, and you
> > > said emphatically, "Yes!", all pretense of a scientific anything
> > > resembling a remote chance at "demolishing" of the ToE went flying out
> > > the window at the speed of light.
> >
> > > Boikat
> >
> > Neither 'Creationism or Evolution are scientific:
>
> Then you are an idiot.
>
> > both offer
> > interpretations of the same scientific evidence.'
>
> Yet only one seems ope to independant verification and testing.
>
> > I doubt that you
> > have enough brain power to understand the fact objectively.
>
> Like you do? You're a joke.
>
> > (Science
> > and scientific is the evidence itself; once it is interpreted the same
> > becomes tainted with a worldview bias.)
>
> Yup, you are a joke, and aside fro the retatded claim the evolution is
> not scientific in nature, you failed to address my point: How do you
> test "Goddidit" and come to an objective conclusion that "Goddidit"
> without relying on the a-priori conclusion that "Goddidit"?
He's not claiming that.
He's claiming that his theory and the ToE are both just philosophical
theories: Metaphysical speculations without scientific proof.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74fca4b2-5c87-4e74...@32g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 1, 2:10 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 4:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 12:58 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
> >
> > Ray evades and postures with :
> >
> > > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > > science.
> >
> > There is no reason anyone should EXPECT mitochondria and a bacterium
> > to be similar. The OBSERVATION that they are is best explained by
> > evolution....
> >
>
> Again: All I wish to point out is that identification of similarity (=
> effect) is ASSUMED to support an evolutionary relationship. We do not
> know that "A" generated "B" absent establishment of cause. Mere
> discovery of similarity does not prove that "A" generated "B." The
> same is an assumption.
That is true.
Linnaeus' taxonomy was NOT by itself a proof that evolution had
occurred.
Linnaeus' work was an *inspiration* that gave scientists like Darwin the
idea to start thinking about whether species in that taxonomy had
evolved from each other.
And today, we have much more evidence for the ToE than taxonomic.
Including the evolution of species within the lifetime of our own
civilization. The Italian wall lizards evolving to become herbivorous,
for example.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5b84ed87-8f6b-4216...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> On 2 June, 02:52, Michael Young <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 3:58�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > organelles and bacteria.
> >
> > I don't know exactly what you were hoping to accomplish with a
> > challenge like this. The answer for any kind of "why" question for
> > Creationists is ubiquitously "because God made it that way." That's
> > how everything is conveniently explained.
>
> I am hoping that there is an anti-evolutionist out there that can
> offer a rational scientific explanation for the striking similarities
> shared by the bacteria called Rickettsia prowazekii and the
> mitochondria found in eukaryotic cells.
The disconnect is that you regard the postulation of an Intelligent
Designer as unscientific, and the anti-evolutionists regard it as
scientific.
An Intelligent Designer could certainly make use of similarities like
those between Rickettsia and mitochondria to preserve and reuse useful
designs over and over again. Does the 2010 model Honda Civic automobile
look so radically different from the 2005 model Honda Civic automobile?
No. They were both independently designed, but the designer *reused*
previous designs to create the latest design. Many components are
similar.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:aa2f1274-7f13-41c7...@q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 1, 4:13 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 12:58 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > organelles and bacteria.
> >
> > All we have here is an assumption that similarity supports
> > evolutionary relationship, protected by a biassed definition of
> > science.
> >
> > Assumptions and non-objective definitions (= all that Darwinism
> > actually is).
> >
> > The best explanation of similarity: work of one Divine Mastermind.
> >
>
> How? When?
>
> How do you account for the fact that both "evolutionists" and *anti-
> evolutionists* who also think that it's the work of "one Divine
> Mastermind," agree that common ancestry fits the evidence - not
> "assumptions" - better than the *equivalent alternative* (two or more
> independent abiogenesis events)?
No, only the more sophisticated ID proponents like Behe accept common
descent.
The hard-core creationists at Answers in Genesis deny there is any "Tree
of Life." They say there is a "Forest of Life," in which each genus is
a unique creation.
-- Steven L.
Phoneme & Morpheme
> If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> organelles and bacteria.
Where is the challenge ASSHOLE?
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5b84ed87-8f6b-4216...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 June, 02:52, Michael Young <youngms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 3:58 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > If the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells don't share a common ancestor
> > > > with the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii, then provide a rational
> > > > scientific explanation for the striking similarities shared by those
> > > > organelles and bacteria.
>
> > > I don't know exactly what you were hoping to accomplish with a
> > > challenge like this. The answer for any kind of "why" question for
> > > Creationists is ubiquitously "because God made it that way." That's
> > > how everything is conveniently explained.
>
> > I am hoping that there is an anti-evolutionist out there that can
> > offer a rational scientific explanation for the striking similarities
> > shared by the bacteria called Rickettsia prowazekii and the
> > mitochondria found in eukaryotic cells.
>
> The disconnect is that you regard the postulation of an Intelligent
> Designer as unscientific, and the anti-evolutionists regard it as
> scientific.
Is it so unreasonable to consider intelligent design unscientific?
I don't think so, especially as it has its roots in creationism, which
is itself a religious rather than a scientific position.
Also, as far as I can tell, not one supporter of either creationism or
intelligent design has ever published a research paper that shows any
evidence in support of such concepts.