|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Best" evidence for evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
More importantly Faith removes any element of objectivity in the definition. She might as well say that humans and monkeys are the same species.
Of course she’s just trying to cover up another of her ignorant mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
My point is that if you sincerely try to think through the trial and error required to get from one type of heart to the one you think it evolved to, you will discover that it is simply impossible. Why are you talking about "trial and error" when Meddle and Sarah Bellum are talking about evolution? Don't you understand how evolution works? Here's an analogy. A person navely believes that television works like live stage performances work, by having actual people inside the box acting out all the action. That's not so far-fetched, given the many comedy sketches (including one by Monty Python) of a TV with a live person inside the box. Based on that misunderstanding of how TV works, that person decides and declares that it is impossible for TV to work. Never mind everybody else's repeated attempts to explain to that person how television actually works. Never mind that anyone can see for themselves that television does indeed actually work. Nope, that person refuses to accept that television could ever possibly work because he has used his gross misunderstanding to "soundly" refute television for all time. Now, if you could explain in sufficient detail how you imagine the evolution of a four-chamber heart from a 3-1/2-chamber heart would have to occur, then perhaps we could have a meaningful discussion. We have certainly tried to describe our understanding to you, though all in vain. You have yet to describe your misunderstanding to us, so we can have no idea how you could have arrived at your false conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Weird idea. The differences between humans and chimps is at LEAST as great as the differences between sheep and goats or deer etc. Lots of similarities, lots of differences. But all those trilobites have an identical form, shape etc., and identical appendages. Yes I can demonstrate it if I have to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I have argued, the only way you can get from one species to another is by trial and error through mutations. That is an entirely different process from microevolution in which all the variations are built into the genome and simply appear through sexual recombination in the case of sexually reproducing creatures. That is what I've been arguing. You don't like it? Oh dear.
You have to get a genetic change that allows for the development of a fourth chamber. Since it isn't built into the genome the only way you are going to get it is by many different mutations that are probably not going to get you anywhere near that result . ever, but at least in bazillions of tries. Just think it through and stop complaining. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: i won’t bother arguing with that point since the important fact is that there are bigger differences between trilobites - so it isn’t a weird idea at all. Indeed since the trilobites and the primates are both classified as Orders it is an entirely reasonable idea. The weird idea is redefining species so it includes an entire Order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Weird it may be, but the case can be made. I think I made it somewhere here a while back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
More importantly Faith removes any element of objectivity in the definition. She might as well say that humans and monkeys are the same species. But of course. It's so obvious. This is from my page, The Bullfrog Affair. It generally covers creationist claims about interspecies protein comparisons using Duane Gish's infamous deliberate lie on national TV about a protein that shows humans and bullfrogs to be more closely related (HINT: no such protein exists and Gish's attempts to cover up his lie are telling). This excerpt is the start of that story (disclaimer: formatting is poor, because it's a repost of my contribution to a CompuServe library, so I was restricted to strictly ASCII):
quote:A "rumor began to sweep around biochemists, that maybe all the differences between chimpanzee and human were really going to turn out to be cultural." Later on that page I give Gish's response on that same PBS show (ie, on national TV):
quote: And so the investigation started. After the publication of this story (one of my sources for this page), false creationist claims would be met with catcalls from the audience of "Bullfrog!" Also on this page is the story of Walter Brown's rattlesnake protein claim. I consider this as a deliberately crafted creationist lie because of how very carefully and exactly the claim needs to be stated in order to remain technically true and how quickly Brown acted to cover it up. The rattlesnake protein claim made use of Dayhoff's mid-60's comparison of cytochrome c between 47 different species, which did not include chimpanzees. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later comparisons of human and chimpazee cytochrome c showed them to be identical, zero differences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No sensible case that takes that actual morphological variety of trilobites into account has been made. Even if we consider the variety that can be seen through simply looking at photographs of fossils without the detailed study of the anatomy that is required. The scientists who have done the work have classed trilobites as an Order. Reducing that to a species is a big step that requires serious work. You haven’t come close to even starting to make that case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The anatomical differences are accidental. The basic morphology is identical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
The anatomical differences are accidental. The basic morphology is identical.
just like humans and chimps
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, dear, the basic morphology is very different. Like the differences between horses and cows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which is entirely consistent with trilobites being correctly described as an Order. Ignoring major differences in anatomy by calling them accidental is not even an argument. You could make exactly the same argument for humans and monkeys being the same species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The morphological similarities are of the sort that would be built into the genome, and the accidental features normal variations of the genetic material. The basic morphology of chimps and humans need entirely different genomes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You’re just making things up. You have no evidence for this assertion at all.
quote: In fact the human and chimp genomes are very similar. We’ll never know but it’s very likely that trilobite genomes differed far more,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry but your ability to judge the similarities and differences is ...lacking, to put it nicely.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024