Vestiges

I'm a geosciences major (read: aspiring student). I take organic chemistry classes and microbio because they're too much fun not to, not because I need them for my major (read: mistake). I won't have time for biochem and I'm burned out anyway. Future plans: hazy but generally involve playing in the dirt.Off topic: As for your credentials I don't see anything wrong with being "flunked" out of Marine jet school. Aviation is a non-careply2C non-school interest of mine. I don't want to enlist and I don't have any aspirations of flying in a two seat missile-carrying jet engine thwarting evildoers but I see GA lessons sometime in my near but indeterminate future.Concerns for the future of this thread: I feel like this new direction for the discussion is a red herring and I wonder if you will disregard our arguments now.

Quetzel (your credentials seem astonishingly great compared to mine)
Since you insist on viewing all questions through the rather odd filter of the Fall and the Curse of Adam, perhaps you could use this viewpoint to explain the success of many lineages in establishing themselves in numerous different niches and adaptive zones?
-- Is the filter odd? Not to millions of oddball Judaeo-Christians throughout the ages of the Bible. True, a ‘curse’ model without restoration fails, and even with the restoration component, you would say I’m begging the question with niches and adaptive zones. Adaptive zones appear arbitrary/ridiculous to the curse-redemption model, unless by faith/biases you deem that adaptive zones are ordained by a ‘merciful-curse-restoring’ creator to enable more life.Even more interesting, how do you explain the failures of different lineages to adapt to zones where they haven't been successful (there are only 200 species of birds, out of 9800, who can be considered aquatic, but none can live entirely in water, nor have any succeeded fully in becoming leaf eaters), no amphibians have adapted to salt water, etc.?
I’m not sure I follow you here. Many lineages have failed to radiate at the expense of others. Failures are part of the Adamic curse model.how is it possible for a negative curse to create fully adapted flightless birds, salamanders with gills, fish with rudimentary lungs, etc?
--Your argument grows stronger. Additionally (in support of your scheme) there are life-forms that have adapted to their ‘pre-adult’ stages so that they are not fully developed (I can’t remember the terms, but, they are like toads/frogs ‘switching’ to their tadpole form). There remains hyper variability that infers an extremely ‘sophisticated’ (pre-programmed/ID) gene pool (from my perspective) that allowed many curious flukes. Naturalistic ‘ironies’, ‘paradoxical’ events. Much of what I detect here follows the old ‘homology-succession’ argument. It is extremely enticing argument for the mutationalist and does spook the creationist. But the Adamic curse/restoration model eases the scare, as strong delusions are sent to ‘try’ all. I have many speculations concerning these (not appropriate here, I believe)How does the Fall explain endosymbiosis? Mitochondrial DNA? Chloroplasts? Endothermy? Complex central nervous system? The change from C3 to C4 grasses in North America that successfully wiped out almost all grazing horse lineages (a positive adaptation for grass)? Parasite/host, predator/prey, or plant/pollinator coevolution? (And just to keep in sync with the topic of this thread) How does original sin explain the disappearing molars in adult Desmodus rotundus - a species that can't chew?
--Endosymbiosis is extremely complex and sophisticated viral infection: the Fall produced serious infections via ID.
--Mitochondrial DNA, I confess I don’t remember. If it is ubiquitous in most cells, perhaps it was created directly. If it is ubiquitous and vestigiloid (doubtful), then you have a strong argument, though isolated thus far.
--Chloroplasts (created directlypre-Fall). Endothermy may be pre-Fall. Complex CNS is extremely fine-tuned despite the fall, probably it was exceedingly complex before the fall. C3 to C4 grasses I confess I don’t know (was it verified as a beneficial chromosomal mutation or just another hyper variation from the original ID/gene pool)
Coevolution implies no significant mutations just hyper variation but may be viewed as c/w both our schemes. The Curse allows for merciful co-adaptations and co-variations between life-forms. Indeed, ‘co-(micro)evolution’ supports the Curse-restoration model because before the Fall their was pre-created such an infinite ‘excellency’ of hypervariability within gene pools, allowing them to currently do such and such.Disappearing molars is a tough one, Q. But all vestigiloid phenomenon are wrought with subtle and sarcastic ironies (from the ID perspective). Sort of makes the ‘Creator’ look seditious on first glance. As if, rather that he sent a ‘lying spirit’ to convince many who would subscribe to pseudo-scientific theories or cults to harden them become increasingly reprobate. I know this sounds absurd, but it is biblically supported (Rom 1.19-32, 1 Kings 22.22-23, 2 Chronicles 18.21-22, etc). Why the Creator would help enable the wicked to become reprobate is fearful and Calvinistic, but part of the Fall. Surely your mind is still open to reason. (I pray mine is)Your biblical apologetics fail miserably to explain anything we actually observe in the natural world. In addition, it fails utterly when attempting to apply it to real-world problems. How does sin allow one to develop antibiotics to combat disease?
--A more elaborated model should be forthcoming. The Fall-Model includes the promise of Salvation for those wanting it (via the Sin-Bearer-God); this motivates me to solve real-world problems. (i.e., I have gone to Haiti 27 to 28 times to preach the gospel in Creole and help starving persons eat, become educated, and use medicines appropriately to combat their diseases)If one wishes to reintroduce a species into a recovering ecosystem, how does the Curse of Adam allow us to predict how many individuals make up a viable population? If we're trying to preserve an endangered ecosystem, how does reference to a biblical Fall permit us to determine keystone species for conservation?
--I don’t know. Man names the animals and has dominion over the creation, biblically, i.e., to do the math, too. How does one determine such with evolutionistic schemes?In short, if all plasmids are preprogrammed and no new functions are appearing, how are those plasmids getting into the lab and even bacteria that don't have plasmids?
--Preprogrammed plasmids sound fantastic, but not as fantastic as mega-evolved ones; one miracle vs. many. I allow for hypervariability based on their being preprogrammed/enabled within their own respective gene pool ‘tolerances’.
Forgive my English, you construe the meaning. Thanks,Philip*********************************************************Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mutation-driven antibiotic resistance in asepsis. I also provided a reference to the survivability of influenza mutants in human subjects being treated with an antiviral and an example of a selected mutation in a human genetic disorder.--No doubt these mutants are real. The first 2 appear ‘beneficial’ types. The last one is ‘detrimental’, i.e., the case of Down’s syndrome (etc.). and won’t be discussed.Mutation-driven really is a ‘controlled’ hypervariability only, and is, thus, a misnomer, though technically correct. Misnomers (mine too) are a plague to scientific understanding. These ‘mutations’ must be the effect of the hypervariability that is pre-coded and extremely sophisticated, from the first respective gene pool of each.Meanwhile I found something else of interesting. Mechanisms of resistance to fluoroquinolones ...
"These alterations arise from spontaneous mutations in the genes encoding the enzyme subunits and thus can exist in small numbers (1 in 106 to 1 in 109 cells)"
--Sounds great for your scheme, Gene, if truly ‘spontaneous’ but wait (look below):"One of the common resistance mutations in GyrA, which causes a change from serine at position 83 to tryptophan, causes reduced binding of norfloxacin to the gyrase-DNA complex."
--Ah, possibly another misnomer, unless TRULY ‘spontaneous’, seems like pre-coded mutation is at work here. But your argument is the most powerful argument I’ve read yet. Quinones act against bacterial DNA-gyrase, a most venerable and highly sophisticated assault against pseudomonas and a broad range of other bacteria by the great geneticists. I must applaud your work here in what appears as a possible ‘spontaneous’ beneficial mutation, indeed. But was it really a spontaneous-chance mutation Gene, or just another pre-programmed hypervariability in that genome?While we're on the importance of "mutational evolution" to microbiology, are you familiar with the Ames test?
--I looked it up. A ‘detrimentally ‘mutated strain of Salmonella’, which is made to lack ability to produce histidine, regains that ability with test compounds that invoke ‘beneficial’ mutation again thus causing (but not ‘better’ than the original gene pool): Salmonella strains and colonies that produce histadine as per their former state. (and indicates carcinogenicity of such test compounds.)
These seem analogous somewhat to repair-DNA found in many genomes, or something similar. It supports a ‘beneficial’ mutation but not ‘spontaneous-chance-beneficial’ mutations.
Thanks for your insight.
Philip********************************************************
________________________________________________________
Dr. T states:
You either have no clue as to what I said or are missing it on purpose. Mutations to the DNA which code for various spects of the transcriptional/translational machinery are known. Resistence to rifampicin and chloremphenicol are two examples.
--See examples by Gene (above, e.g., mutational resistance in quinones ), which seem more coherent and convincing to your scheme. I elaborated on his examples which may be analogous to yours. Argue from my discussion with him.Oh, and as you seem to wish to be pissy, transcription is DNA to mRNA and translation is mRNA to protein with the help of rRNA and tRNA.
-- Can’t we just cut-to-the-chase, there are many complex factors (i.e., protein factors) that presently render us both void of knowledge (myself a little voider). Sorry for the crudeness of language. Vocabulary is a great ‘blessing’ to your scheme and mine when used without the hoaxings.
again, you really do not know what you are talking about. Here are a few links to educate you.lateral gene transfer is rather common it seems, and between related and not so related species.
--Finally a result (no time to read your sources); I’ll ‘trust your’ judgment for now, though I’d like to know the names of your not so related species. Lateral gene transfer is rather common perhaps between various species (thus supposedly supporting your grand-mutationalist scheme).--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(By Philip)
Again, I detect serious ‘begging of the question’ reasoning within your model(s). They are completely invalid and unrelated to the ‘mutational’ model, being merely ‘variations’ coded into the master-DNA. Please don’t use it on me again (or on anyone else in this forum) until you demonstrate to us a ‘chance’ CHROMOSOMAL mutation in these bacteria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My, you are rather arrogant aren't you. First, there is no master DNA, that is like a comment that a creationist told me in a debate concerning proteins and activity. He said that info could not be gained from a mutation and when I gave him some mutational examples he said that it merely made the protein closer to what it was supposed to be.
--You say there is no ‘master DNA’, no ‘master genomes’, no Lord period (my crude terms, but well understood). But I see all your mutations as arbitrary, that is, each incorporated into the ‘original’ gene pool specific to the bacterial kind that has its pre-fixed bounds and limits, though highly variable in a few ‘mutational spots’ only.Idiotic Aristotelian BS.
--Ah finally a word of truth. Educated idiots we all are, myself foremost, lacking scientific truth while striving for it.Here are some examples for you of hypervariable and other MUTATIONAL spots withn the chromosomes (and other areas within the overall genetic makeup).By the way, your choice of the term "chance" is somewhat disingenuous. Chance in this area means merely that it can not be completely predetermined. Ie we can give a probability of an event within a population but we can not give the exact sequence and the exact gene and the exact individual.
--At present, I can not refute your term chance and must digest it overnight. For, I am entangled in your objections of ‘science’-falsely so called, for now. This however is arbitrary entanglement. You already know that I don’t accept ‘accidents’, ‘chance’, ‘freedom’, nor ‘dignity’ in my creationist scheme (that would belittle God’s omnipotence, etc), despite the wrong ‘choices’ we make, the ‘spontaneous events’ etc. that so randomly occur in genetics and universally as well. Pick a straw, role the dice, witness the forces of chance and randomization as they lead to infinite possibilities that become increasingly detrimental. Makes me want to quit believing in luck. Luck sucks! Entropy kills! No, your mutationalist scheme involutes, implodes, and corrupts the real God-driven microbiology going on, which will always only be known in part (like all the other sciences) by puny men like you and I.
Now chose when the miracle occurs, if you please. Granted, mutational microbiology is a real and challenging science for medicine and gene splicing, but the mutations have their bounds and limits amidst selection pressures. No significant ‘beneficial’ mutation -- producing a new organelle, a new complexity, etc -- has yet been shown to violate gene pool limitations of ‘kinds’, not by splicing, not by artificially selection, not by resistance mechanisms. Sure, we can make life-forms do nice tricks but severely limited ones.Also consider this (then rebuke), the more hypervariable a population’s gene pool becomes, the more it would seem prone to detrimental mutations, too. Make it more and more mutable and entropy will destroy the succeeding mutants quickly. Salvation by selection pressures would fail rapidly. Innumerable miracles would be required (theistic mutationalism)(OK, you drug me down to this ‘mutationalist’ dungeon, but now I am un-entangled, ‘Twas the disgusting odor of the primordial slime methinks, else the stench of the methane, but now ‘quickened’ as it were, into the more excellent and comely ID-model; I pray to take you up with me as you chastise this model a little further.)(Note: My physiological makeup was a genetic clone (identical twin) whose cloned brother has numerous opposite ‘mental’ traits (i.e., existentialist, atheist, alcoholic, divorcee vs myself a fundamentalist, Christian, abstainer, married till death, etc.). Our embryological genetics started similarly enough, but changed drastically, by what seemed other-than-chance phenomenon, something metaphysical)These only appear cursed from a superstitions perspective from someone who really does not understand molecular biology.
--Granted. But your understanding of molecular biology is so limited, too. Consider how little is known in bacterial genetics, their ‘beneficial’ ‘mutation spots’, let alone the genetics of the higher, real life-forms. The complexity of molecular biology is exceedingly great beyond that of any other science. The molecular vocabulary itself is incomprehensible. How cursed it must be to not even see one’s life as cursed in his/her knowledge of genetics, medicine, etc. or even in ones metaphysical life.
Thus, the ‘Curse/Salvation’ ID model does appear to follow the data.And the data follows the model that I mentioned earlier, ie evolution.
--i.e., And the data follows the model ‘superstitious mutationalism’ (vs. the misnomer ‘evolution’), si vou plait.

I'm pretty busy atm, so I’ll just pick up a couple of points for now:

quote:

---

Quetzal: how is it possible for a negative curse to create fully adapted flightless birds, salamanders with gills, fish with rudimentary lungs, etc?

​

Philip: [...] There remains hyper variability that infers an extremely ‘sophisticated’ (pre-programmed/ID) gene pool (from my perspective) that allowed many curious flukes.

---

So, organisms are pre-programmed with sufficient genetic variability to adapt to flightlessness (eg kiwi wings), develop legs, etc. How, apart from the un-evinced hypothetical pre-programming element, is this different from evolution? How do you tell which bits are due to this ‘hypervariability’, and which are due to this ‘curse’? In other words, how is this testable?Are blind cave creatures eyeless through a curse that attacked them in a way that made no difference, since they live in the dark; did they go blind and so went to live where it didn’t matter, or are certain salamanders, crayfish, spiders etc etc genetically hypervariable and so could adapt in ways that look just like evolution (including, of course, speciation)?

quote:

---

Naturalistic ‘ironies’, ‘paradoxical’ events. Much of what I detect here follows the old ‘homology-succession’ argument. It is extremely enticing argument for the mutationalist and does spook the creationist. But the Adamic curse/restoration model eases the scare, as strong delusions are sent to ‘try’ all. I have many speculations concerning these (not appropriate here, I believe)

---

= whiffle-waffle. You don’t know. And what’s a ‘mutationalist’, and what do you mean by the old ‘homology-succession’ argument? I could guess, but I’ve not heard my guess answers called this before, so please clarify.

quote:

---

--Endosymbiosis is extremely complex and sophisticated viral infection

---

Bwahaha! Oh-deary-dear.... viruses? The classic example of endosymbiosis is mitochondria, which are (or were) bacteria. Their nearest living relative is the bacterium Rickettsia prowazekii: see Andersson et at (1998), ‘The genome sequence of Rickettsia prowazekii and the origin of mitochondria’, Nature 396, 133-140. Unusually for Nature, the full article is available online here, along with ‘Rickettsia, typhus and the mitochondrial connection’. There is a simplified version in this article in The Scientist.

quote:

---

the Fall produced serious infections via ID.

---

But mitochondria are a very useful infection. The curse produced good stuff too?How is this different from guided evolution?They also, you should note, ‘infected’ early eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are practically every living thing you can think of: certainly all plants and animals. That’s a lot of microevolutionary change since the Fall caused the infection! (Note that ancestral rickettsial infections didn’t happen thousands of times separately in separate kinds: changes in mtDNA can be used to map evolutionary relationships in just the same way that DNA analysis can show that you’re related to your family. And oddly, they usually accord very well with normal evolutionary phylogenies based on boring old anatomy, physiology, geographic distribution and so on. Have a read of this online cladistics textbok.And when did this ID kick in? Were creatures not created -- intelligently designed -- before the Fall? God seems mighty pissed off after the apple incident, and curses his creation for it. You seem to be saying that some? many? apparently intelligently designed features are the result of god’s curse...? God creating clever and intricate stuff I can understand, but how can a curse also do so?

quote:

---

--Mitochondrial DNA, I confess I don’t remember. If it is ubiquitous in most cells, perhaps it was created directly.

---

Yes, mitochondria are ubiquitous in most cells. They are the ‘powerhouses’ of cells: the energy-producing organelles, and are thus essential to the life of each eukaryotic cell.Sure, they could have been created directly. Odd though, if that’s the case, that the rest of the complexities of cells themselves, and the wondrous complexities of the tissues and bodies they make up -- everything else, in other words -- is coded for by the DNA in the nucleus. All the ‘information’ for building everything else bodies have is in there, but not the information for building an important little bit in each cell.Not only do mitochondria have their own, separate DNA; not only are the mitochondria in each egg cell the ‘descendants’ -- made from the reproduction of other mitochondria -- of those in the mother’s body, and passed down generations separately; but also, these organelles have a genome surprisingly similar to a free-living bacterium. How does creation expect this? How does it explain it?Cheers, Darwin’s Terrier

Two words:Extensor coccygis

Hi Philip:

quote:

---

Is the filter odd? Not to millions of oddball Judaeo-Christians throughout the ages of the Bible. True, a ‘curse’ model without restoration fails, and even with the restoration component, you would say I’m begging the question with niches and adaptive zones. Adaptive zones appear arbitrary/ridiculous to the curse-redemption model, unless by faith/biases you deem that adaptive zones are ordained by a ‘merciful-curse-restoring’ creator to enable more life.

---

Besides begging the question, what you said here isn’t even consistent with your own model. Either everything is going to hell in a handbasket because of the Fall — awaiting redemption — or it isn’t. If true, there should be NO new niches, no adaptive radiation, no ability for organisms to move into new zones. Which is it? You seem to be implying here that your deity has been picking and choosing which species might adapt because of restoration, and which won’t because they’re still cursed. This makes no sense from either a scientific or theological standpoint.

quote:

---

Quetzal: Even more interesting, how do you explain the failures of different lineages to adapt to zones where they haven't been successful (there are only 200 species of birds, out of 9800, who can be considered aquatic, but none can live entirely in water, nor have any succeeded fully in becoming leaf eaters), no amphibians have adapted to salt water, etc.?

​

Philip: I’m not sure I follow you here. Many lineages have failed to radiate at the expense of others. Failures are part of the Adamic curse model.

---

However, there is nothing intrinsic to these organisms that would preclude them from adopting new survival strategies except the constraints imposed by common descent. Birds aren’t fully aquatic (like fish) because doing so would require a radical redesign of their physiology — a reversal of all the evolutionary change that occurred over millions of years. In short, it would require a Curse. It’s not a question of at the expense of others, because many species HAVE radiated at the expense of others (just look at the success of Dreissena polymorpha, the zebra mussel, which has successfully eliminated 29 of 76 species of fresh water mussel over the last 30 years in the Great Lakes or Lates niloticus, the Nile perch, which has eliminated over 200 species of native cichlids in Lake Victoria after its introduction in the late ‘50s). Again, this is the flip side of the coin concerning new niches. If there’s a Curse, I’ll accept for the sake of argument that it would preclude adaptive radiation. However, since some organisms HAVE adapted to new environments, why not others?

quote:

---

Quetzal: how is it possible for a negative curse to create fully adapted flightless birds, salamanders with gills, fish with rudimentary lungs, etc?

​

Philip: --Your argument grows stronger. Additionally (in support of your scheme) there are life-forms that have adapted to their ‘pre-adult’ stages so that they are not fully developed (I can’t remember the terms, but, they are like toads/frogs ‘switching’ to their tadpole form). There remains hyper variability that infers an extremely ‘sophisticated’ (pre-programmed/ID) gene pool (from my perspective) that allowed many curious flukes. Naturalistic ‘ironies’, ‘paradoxical’ events. Much of what I detect here follows the old ‘homology-succession’ argument. It is extremely enticing argument for the mutationalist and does spook the creationist. But the Adamic curse/restoration model eases the scare, as strong delusions are sent to ‘try’ all. I have many speculations concerning these (not appropriate here, I believe)

---

If by pre-adult stages you are referring to neotenic organisms, then yes there are a few. My favorite example is Ambystoma spp. There are 36 species of the genus Ambystoma, of which IIRC 12 are neotenic, at least one of which can be induced to metamorphosis artificially (Ambystoma mexicanis). If this oddity can be accounted for by hypervariability (whatever that is — you really should define your terms), why is it that some species of this genus ARE neotenic, but others AREN’T? Shouldn’t all of them be one or the other — after all, they’re the same kind, right? A. mexicanus and A. tigrinum, for example, are absolutely identical morphologically during the larval stage — except that A. tigrinum becomes an adult salamander, whereas A. mexicanis doesn’t. Even more bizarre, when mexicanis is artificially induced to metamorphosis, the two species are practically indistinguishable as adults (there are some very minor differences). There’s currently an argument among the scientists who study these critters as to whether or not they really ARE the same species. This is quite easily explainable by differential selection pressures operating on isolated populations (i.e., evolution). I have no idea how you could even admit these organisms exist under a Curse scenario.There’s nothing in here about homology-succession (whatever that is — care to define your terms?). These are living, reasonably well-adapted organisms I’m talking about. The examples I gave are only paradoxical under your model. They’re quite prosaic under the ToE — and provide pretty good evidence for evolution. After all, the ToE predicts that there will be myriads of bizarre adaptations, because each organism has its very own evolutionary history — different even between populations of the same species. Oddly enough, this is what we observe in nature

quote:

---

Quetzal: How does the Fall explain endosymbiosis? Mitochondrial DNA? Chloroplasts? Endothermy? Complex central nervous system? The change from C3 to C4 grasses in North America that successfully wiped out almost all grazing horse lineages (a positive adaptation for grass)? Parasite/host, predator/prey, or plant/pollinator coevolution? (And just to keep in sync with the topic of this thread) How does original sin explain the disappearing molars in adult Desmodus rotundus - a species that can't chew?

​

Philip: --Endosymbiosis is extremely complex and sophisticated viral infection: the Fall produced serious infections via ID.

---

What? Endosymbiosis has absolutely nothing to do with virii. Where did you come up with this one? Endosymbiosis is evinced in everything from E. coli in the human gut to aid digestion, to Mixotricha paradoxa, a colony bacterial organism comprised of five bacterial agamospecies living inside a single cell-like membrane that itself lives inside the gut of termites and allows them to digest cellulose (a two-tiered endosymbiosis!) to eukaryotic cellular organelles. These are only the endosymbionts. We haven’t even gotten in to the really bizarre macro symbiotic relationships observed in nature — none of which can be successfully explained by any stretch or contortion of theology. (You’re a podiatrist, you’ll appreciate this experiment: try showing how the Fall can be used to explain the parasitic mites that live on the feet of neotropical army ants — Eciton spp. The mites drink the ants’ blood. The ants use them as artificial feet. The mites are exactly the size of the ants’ feet, rendering them useless. However, the mites have curved hind legs exactly the size of the ants’ claws — so the ants use the mites legs instead of their own claws when hanging while nesting. I’d love to hear your theological explanation for this one)

quote:

---

--Mitochondrial DNA, I confess I don’t remember. If it is ubiquitous in most cells, perhaps it was created directly. If it is ubiquitous and vestigiloid (doubtful), then you have a strong argument, though isolated thus far.

---

Yep, almost universally ubiquitous in eukaryotes. Most definitely NOT vestigial — you couldn’t live without it. However, the problem creationists face with mitochondrial DNA is that, while composed of the same nucleotides as nuclear DNA, it is utterly different from the cell’s normal DNA. In fact, the closest genomic relative is the bacterial DNA from (as Darwinsterrier mentioned) Rikketsia! See why mtDNA is the poster child of endosymbiosis?

quote:

---

--Chloroplasts (created directlypre-Fall).

---

You are incorrect. Chloroplasts are more evidence of endosymbiosis — in fact it may have happened three times! There are substantial differences in the chloroplasts present in green algae and plants, red algae, and glaucophytes (another algae). Worse still, from a creationist perspective, is the fact that molecular evidence shows another level of secondary endosymbiosis where photosynthetic cryptomonads and chlorarachniophytes — both eukaryotes — have ingested other eukaryotes (a red algae and a green algae, respectively). The same kind of evidence underlies the fact that chloroplasts were formerly free-living bacteria as underpins mitochondria.

quote:

---

Endothermy may be pre-Fall.

---

Riiiight. And this explains why so many very well-adapted metazoans - in fact, the vast majority of all life on the planet - are NOT endothermic? You don’t have to just explain away the positive evidence — you have to explain away the anomalies as well.

quote:

---

Complex CNS is extremely fine-tuned despite the fall, probably it was exceedingly complex before the fall.

---

I assume you have some evidence for this assertion? Anything that might show that at some point in the history of life organisms — of any type — were more finely designed or better tuned at any point?

quote:

---

C3 to C4 grasses I confess I don’t know (was it verified as a beneficial chromosomal mutation or just another hyper variation from the original ID/gene pool)

---

Weeel, they’re different families of grass, but they’re still grass. It’s the difference between Kentucky bluegrass on your lawn and grama grass, bluestem (or corn, which is a C4 derivative) in a fallow field. C4 grass has about three times as much silica as C3. Yes, there’s chromosomal differences between the two, although the win of C4 over C3 probably had more to do with climate change and increased atmospheric CO2 than mutation. Mutation created the variability in the grass functional groupings, then environmental change caused the distribution variance (odd, sounds like evolution). In any event, the change caused the extinction of 7 of the 11 existing horse species, not to mention helping to wipe out the North American populations of rhinoceri and camels Here’s an interesting article for you: Fossil Horses and Global Environmental Change Over the Past 20 Million Years. This is one of those neat evolutionary twists that I often stumble over where I least expect it. Here you have 11 species of horses contentedly munching grass. In a relatively short period of time due to abiotic factors the distribution pattern of their lunch changes drastically. C4 grasses became dominant NOT because of an evolutionary arms race between grass and horses, but because C3 grass couldn't handle the climate change. C4 grasses did better in the new environment, and therefore out-competed the C3s. Poor dumb horses died out because it turns out that, purely coincidently, C4 grass was inedible for them. They lost an arms race they didn't even know they were in...

quote:

---

Coevolution implies no significant mutations just hyper variation but may be viewed as c/w both our schemes. The Curse allows for merciful co-adaptations and co-variations between life-forms. Indeed, ‘co-(micro)evolution’ supports the Curse-restoration model because before the Fall their was pre-created such an infinite ‘excellency’ of hypervariability within gene pools, allowing them to currently do such and such.

---

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Coevolution implies favorable mutations. Not only that, but coevolution explicitly requires that the evolutionary mechanism of frequency co-dependence is valid. This is substantially more than variation around a mean frequency. You lost me on the bit about merciful. I’m not sure I’d characterize the life-or-death struggle (evolutionary arms race) between predator and prey or between parasite and host as merciful. Perhaps you’re using the term differently?

quote:

---

Disappearing molars is a tough one, Q. But all vestigiloid phenomenon are wrought with subtle and sarcastic ironies (from the ID perspective). Sort of makes the ‘Creator’ look seditious on first glance. As if, rather that he sent a ‘lying spirit’ to convince many who would subscribe to pseudo-scientific theories or cults to harden them become increasingly reprobate. I know this sounds absurd, but it is biblically supported (Rom 1.19-32, 1 Kings 22.22-23, 2 Chronicles 18.21-22, etc). Why the Creator would help enable the wicked to become reprobate is fearful and Calvinistic, but part of the Fall. Surely your mind is still open to reason. (I pray mine is)

---

Disappearing molars is only a problem for creationists. It’s quite a common type of phenomenon under ToE. This is simply another example of a vestigial organ that has no longer any use (like the disappearing teeth in foetal Mystacoceti or the still-extant but unexpressed genes for teeth in chickens). These bats lose their teeth after birth but before adulthood — sort of like losing your baby teeth but not getting them replaced with adult molars. And no, before you ask, the babies have no use for them, either, since they suckle like other mammals until they’re ready to start digesting blood like their parents.As far as having a mind still open to reason — well, thanks, but I’m an unashamed, unrepentant, and unreconstructed evilutionist — didn’t you know? Of course, I’m also a treasonous SOB — come up with a theory that better explains the data and is empirically verifiable, and I’ll drop ToE like a hot rock

quote:

---

Quetzal: How does sin allow one to develop antibiotics to combat disease?

​

Philip: --A more elaborated model should be forthcoming. The Fall-Model includes the promise of Salvation for those wanting it (via the Sin-Bearer-God); this motivates me to solve real-world problems. (i.e., I have gone to Haiti 27 to 28 times to preach the gospel in Creole and help starving persons eat, become educated, and use medicines appropriately to combat their diseases)

---

I’m delighted to hear you’re doing good deeds, especially in a place like Haiti, which needs all the help it can get. It would be great if more people followed in your footsteps. I applaud your work. However, you didn’t answer the question.

quote:

---

Quetzal: If one wishes to reintroduce a species into a recovering ecosystem, how does the Curse of Adam allow us to predict how many individuals make up a viable population? If we're trying to preserve an endangered ecosystem, how does reference to a biblical Fall permit us to determine keystone species for conservation?

​

Philip: --I don’t know. Man names the animals and has dominion over the creation, biblically, i.e., to do the math, too. How does one determine such with evolutionistic schemes?

---

At least you’re honest about not knowing. Man’s dominion over creation is precisely what I’m concerned about. We’re the proximate cause of so much mass extinction that we’d better get our collective acts together soon and fix the problem, or at least halt the destruction, or I’m convinced there won’t be anything left to worry about.As to how evilutionists deal with these issues — that’s a question requiring several volumes. Simply put, at the theoretical level we start by thoroughly studying both the evolutionary and natural history of a specific organism, making detailed studies of the evolution of a given ecosystem type or biome, and painstakingly mapping and tracing the intricate and complex web of interactions within existing ecosystems. At the practical level, we take this data and develop a conservation plan (for protection of endangered species or ecosystems), or a regeneration plan (to rebuild shattered ecosystems or reintroduce vanished species). Sometimes we rely on information from geneticists (numbers of individuals that make up a viable breeding population), zoologists and other specialists (okay, so, what does it eat and how much does it need? What’s its normal range? How fast does it reproduce? What’s the normal carrying capacity of an ecosystem for this species? Any co-dependendent organisms we need to add as well? Any special diseases, threats, susceptibilities, etc.?) It isn’t easy. A lot of times we’re merely making our best guess. Of course, a scientist’s best guess is often pretty damn good. Some of the most stimulating arguments I’ve ever had were in-house discussions over the viability of a particular ecosystem or the wisdom (not to mention the practical considerations!) of reintroducing a predator whose local population had been hunted to extinction or the identification of keystone species and functional groups within a proposed conservation area. You can see, perhaps, why I have little patience with people who merely want to say, Goddidit as an explanation for everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

3) Human anatomy is the most studied life-form. I challenge anyone to find something vestigial in the human body norm. Doubtless, however, we may find vestigiloid appearing structures only, like ‘smelly feet’ (which do have a function).
HYPOTHESIS: Because vestigiality is so necessarily a byproduct of mutational evolution: No vestigiality in humans would = No viable mutational evolution model.

---

What about the appendix ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Of course the definition of vestigial is biased in favor of evolution. The reason is that the concept of "vestigial" is based on evolution. Why would God create useless organs?... But the idea behind the relationship of vestiges and evolution is that these useless parts are gradually disappearing from the species. The idea of something truly "vestigial" just doesn't fit with Creationism."
--Being a YEC, your statment seemed relatively flawless untill you made your last assertion... BTW, welcome to the forum

---

How so ?If all creatures were created 'as is', why would any show traits
that could be interpreted as vestigial ?Is God a practical joker, or a bad craftsdeitty, adding useless
parts to his creations ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

Is God a practical joker, or a bad craftsdeity

---

Craftsdeity! LOL! Love it, consider it stolen

quote:

---

adding useless parts to his creations ?

---

Beware! It's best to avoid calling vestigials useless. Many, such as satellite DNA, are useless, but saying so about vestigials in general only encourages creationists to wheel out lists of what these features do do. Vestigial does not have to mean useless, it simply means a remnant or degenerate version of something. Which as TC says, means it's based on evolution.The crucial point though, as I've said elsewhere, is that it's a matter of morphology, a simple question, often, of something looking like a degenerate version of something that's more substantial in (for loads of unrelated reasons, considered to be) related organisms. Most primates have tails; for loads of non-tail reasons, apes are considered primates; apes are presumed to have had tails in the past, so here in present ones it is expected that they might have some anatomical remnant of one. They do, the coccyx. (Note that this applies to all apes, not just humans... as expected.)To emphasise: NOT that a vestigial is useless, but that it is structurally like you'd expect it to be if it did indeed use to be more substantial. IOW, having features unrelated to the claimed function: additional morphological details that only make sense under evolution.TTFN, Darwin's Terrier

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

No significant ‘beneficial’ mutation -- producing a new organelle, a new complexity, etc -- has yet been shown

---

Correct. And nobody expects that such a mutation -- able to leap up precipices of Mount Improbable in a single bound -- would occur. That's not how it works. Not only is that therefore a straw man; by saying that no such mutation

quote:

---

has yet been shown to violate gene pool limitations of ‘kinds’

---

...it sure sounds like you think there really have been such mutations -- producing new organelles and new complexities -- just that they don't violate any limitations on 'kind' (whatever that is).Organelles are complex things; complexity is, well, complex. The whole point and power of cumulative selection is that you don't build complex stuff in a single big random jump, you build up by stepwise increments. Members of a population may take tiny jumps in all genetic directions... but only those that get it right (whatever 'right' is in the particular environment) get to play in the next round. Thus you're rather in danger of looking like you don't know what you're talking about.

quote:

---

gene pool limitations of ‘kinds’

---

Perhaps then Philip you'd be kind enough to define 'kind'. Is it equivalent to species? Genus? Family? Or something else? (I've heard it called every taxonomic level up to and including kingdom.) You claim 'kinds' are immutable; we need to know what you think one is. Thanks.Cheers, Darwin's Terrier

"Extensor coccygis"
--See my post #1 on the coccyx and its various parts which no one seemed was relevent, as well as this link: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/coccyx.htmI will assume that Dr_Tazimus_maximus agrees with me on my position in post #26.------------------

"How so ?If all creatures were created 'as is', why would any show traits
that could be interpreted as vestigial ?"
--Applying what you learn in Biology 101, I think you see why?------------------

"Craftsdeity! LOL! Love it, consider it stolen "
--Craftsdeity! LOL! Love it, consider it futile and frivolous."The crucial point though, as I've said elsewhere, is that it's a matter of morphology, a simple question, often, of something looking like a degenerate version of something that's more substantial in (for loads of unrelated reasons, considered to be) related organisms. Most primates have tails; for loads of non-tail reasons, apes are considered primates; apes are presumed to have had tails in the past, so here in present ones it is expected that they might have some anatomical remnant of one. They do, the coccyx. (Note that this applies to all apes, not just humans... as expected.)"
--I don't think this is enough to call it vestigial, after all what other reasonable anatomical source of protrusion from the back end than an extending spinal column. In this scenario, vestigiality relies on an assumption of decent, which is a circular process they both rely on each other to be valid."To emphasise: NOT that a vestigial is useless, but that it is structurally like you'd expect it to be if it did indeed use to be more substantial. IOW, having features unrelated to the claimed function: additional morphological details that only make sense under evolution."
--I have no problem with vestigials though the coccyx to show common decent with a once tailed ape-like creature is much too evasive.--Also you may consider my responses #13 and #14 to your initial argument. Or even #34 in the thread 'Evolution......?'.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-04-2002]

TC: I have to pick a bone (err, sorry) with you about the coccyx. Darwinsterrier's point about that structure all along has been that it is morphologically indistinguishable from a tail. It uses the same bones as a tail in every other land animal that has a tail. The only difference is that humans (and certain other primates), don't have tails and the bones have fused. This is not circular - it's basic anatomy. It is considered vestigial - NOT because it no longer has a function (like the teeth example I used above) - but because it's original function (a tail) is no longer needed by the organism, hence it has been co-opted for other functions. Since evolution can only operate on existing structures, the coccyx fits the bill.

"TC: I have to pick a bone (err, sorry) with you about the coccyx. Darwinsterrier's point about that structure all along has been that it is morphologically indistinguishable from a tail. It uses the same bones as a tail in every other land animal that has a tail. The only difference is that humans (and certain other primates), don't have tails and the bones have fused. This is not circular - it's basic anatomy. It is considered vestigial - NOT because it no longer has a function (like the teeth example I used above) - but because it's original function (a tail) is no longer needed by the organism, hence it has been co-opted for other functions. Since evolution can only operate on existing structures, the coccyx fits the bill. "
--Yes I do see your point, and it seems perfectly logical. However, for it to logically be a vestige, it does have to be a degenerate version of a use it used to have. Thus, decent with modification is assumed for it to be a vestige. So I wasn't actually wrong in pointing this out. If Evolution has happend, yes it is a vestige along with many other anatomical parts with even more which are vestige with or without an old earth. Though if it has not, it is not a vestigial structure but one with the uses I have pointed out.------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I will assume that Dr_Tazimus_maximus agrees with me on my position in post #26.[/B][/QUOTE]Sorry, I have been flying cross country doing the business trip thing so I have not been able to look at either your physiology/anatomy book re: the calf muscle or to further research the wisdom teeth in certian primative peoples. Not to mention being tired and lagged. However, you did appear to agree with me w.r.t. the goosebumps (the hair standing in homo sapiens is so minor and small as to be unlikely to be a communacative reaction). Likewise the decrease in molar teeth in different groups which no longer use them would also fit into vestigial or partial vestigial traits. I will see what I can do later today or tommorrow.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz