Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galapagos finches
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 104 (89154)
02-27-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by NosyNed
02-27-2004 7:51 PM


Re: genetical identical but not interfertile?
She talks about virtually instantaneous speciation when two tiny critters merge their genomes. Like when some critter is swallowed, and instead colonizes the other, or when it attacks the other and is co-opted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2004 7:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Quetzal, posted 02-28-2004 9:17 AM Tamara has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 77 of 104 (89235)
02-28-2004 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tamara
02-27-2004 9:26 PM


Re: genetical identical but not interfertile?
Hmm, seems like a logical extension of her serial endosymbiosis theory. However, whereas there's a lot of good evidence for SET at the microbial level, it sounds like she may be extending that beyond what can be supported. Not saying I disagree - I admitted I haven't read "Acquiring Genomes" (the only two books I've read of hers are "Symbiotic Planet" which was mostly new-agey philosophy with a dash of science, and "Microcosmos" which was fascinating and dealt with SET mostly). Obviously, to be able to argue the case one way or the other I'm going to have to read the book. (*grumbles*, another bloody tome on my reading list - maybe I'll pick it up before my next trip).
I would caution you about Margulis, however. Her ideas are extremely interesting, but she occasionally gets very assertive and positive sounding in areas which are not really well-supported. IOW, she's been known to overstate the case - a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tamara, posted 02-27-2004 9:26 PM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Tamara, posted 02-28-2004 10:11 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 104 (89247)
02-28-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Quetzal
02-28-2004 9:17 AM


Re: genetical identical but not interfertile?
I know, she is very gung ho on her stuff...
There is another book I got with hers, called Darwin's Blind Spot, where a guy was breeding amoebas, they got attacked by some bacterial plague and mostly got wiped out. But a few survived, he kept them, and discovered that they became a new organism where the bacteria found a home in the host cytoplasm and altered the host in a number of ways. I am not clear from the story if the genome was altered too.
So much to read, so little time!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Quetzal, posted 02-28-2004 9:17 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 79 of 104 (89370)
02-29-2004 4:49 AM


New topic time?
Seems like some interesting stuff is getting lost in a Finch topic.
Adminnemooseus

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 104 (335040)
07-24-2006 11:01 PM


here we go ...
bump
to bring this to the surface for continued discussion from
Finches named for Darwin are evolving
RAZD writes:
Message 9, to MurkyWaters, Message 2:
You realize that this is wonderful evidence for creation, ...
Of course it is, because you can define "creation" any way you want to and make it fit, and re-define it to suit whenever necessary, as in when new evidence contradicts previous asserted positions to the point where they cannot be ignored.
Also note the Deist position that the universe was created with everything in place and designed for life to evolve from primordial components does not contradict or clash with the concept of life evolving over time, so this is "wonderful evidence" for Deism.
... not evolution!
Now here you make a logical leap of faith and commit a logical fallacy at the same time. You are essentially asserting that because you can claim the evidence is for "creation" that it then must be against evolution. This is not established. As noted above creation can include evolution as the mechanism by which all life has evolved.
To establish that this is "not evolution" you have to demonstrate that it {CAN'T} be evolution. Not only has that not been done, but the evidence in the paper is that it not only {CAN} be evolution but {IS} evolution.
Evolution is change in species over time -- precisely what is demonstrated by the finches in question, as noted in the (Science) paper (especially) and referenced in the news article.
The term "Evolution" or "Micro-evolution" is commonly used in some evolutionist circles to simply refer to "Adaptation" or "Natural Selection" which has nothing at all to do with molecules to man Evolution.
You forgot mutation in your common creationist strawman argument here. Note that the article specifically states:
This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.
(bold mine for empHASis)
This means the article is not discussing abiogenesis (the proper term for your creationist " molecules to man" misrepresentation), or even evolution of the finches from a common ancestor with other birds (and has nothing to do with either molecules or man).
Further, what you refer to as "Adaptation" is the selection of mutations by Natural Selection. The real mechanisms are Mutation and Selection. One causes variations in the base population (in this case large and small beaks in the finches) and the other selects variations that give a species an advantage (here small beaks in the smaller species to take advantage of seeds the other population is not eating) and it de-selects variations that hinder or harm the species (here the larger beaks):
The result was high mortality among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of small-beaked G. fortis that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds.
Now to claim that this is NOT evolution you have to show that this is NOT what happened, but that something else caused this {appearance of evolution}.
You cannot take the fact that finches have adapted to their environment by developing longer or shorter beaks and then extrapolate that to say they will turn in alligators if we wait long enough! After millions of generations, birds are still birds, ...
And that is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is. You stated:
... I say that since I don't know to what extent terms have been defined.
We use the common definitions that apply to science and biology in general and evolution in particular.
For instance - dictionary.com defines evolution as:
ev·o·lu·tion
3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Please point out where this in any way necessitates birds becoming alligators, or that descendant species will not be related to their ancestor species.
Now if you want to discuss how "macro"evolution cannot happen, that should go to a different thread rather than disrupt this one that is specifically about the evolution of variation in the finch population on the Galapagos islands.
I suggest "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
To sum: you have not demonstrated {HOW} this {CAN} be evidence for creation (other than by redefining "creation" to include it) nor have you demonstrated {HOW} this {CANNOT} be evidence for evolution. All you have made is an assertion of belief untainted by facts. Or as Faith notes:
Message 5
Right in tune with the rest of us creationists here.
In fact we can attribute the foundations of the majority of modern science to creationists.
You can, but you are asserting another false statement that is disproved by ALL the evidence.
You are conflating modern creationists with victorian christians, a logical fallacy, ignoring the non-christian thinkers, and ignoring the "foundations" that existed before christianity was even "created" (and long before it "evolved" into american fundamentalist creationism).
Further, the sciences have moved on, unfettered by erroneous past thinking, including that of creationist mis-preconceptions (such as flat earth and geocentricism) in their pursuit of knowledge of {HOW} things work based on the evidence that is available.
Because you can cite {SOME} evidence for a position does not make it true or valid, most especially when you ignore {OTHER} evidence that disproves the position. The denial of {CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE} means that the position is false, regardless of any claims otherwise, until such time as you can show how the evidence is wrong or explain it in terms of the position claimed.
Enjoy.
ps
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
You can also pick "Peek Mode" on the message you are replying to in order to see how others do special formating.
And Welcome to the fray
MurkyWaters writes:
Message 12, in reply:
I have prepared a response to your post which I think is relevant. What would you like me to do with it? That is, I prepared the response before I saw your "Off Topic" note. I don't know if you mean just message 10 or if you feel the whole thing is going in the wrong direction. I also don't know how to tell who are administrators or who can actually make those decisions. While my response does deal in part with definitions, I feel it is still relavant to the topic. I have begun to peruse the forums and I've found that other creationist here have provide similar information. Nevertheless, if you subscribed to any of it, I don't think you would have responded to my original post, so I'm inclined to move forward. If I don't hear back from you in the next hour, I will go ahead and post here. If someone thinks it should be moved or ended, that's fine.
Here should be fine ... (k jar?)

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 8:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1174 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 81 of 104 (335307)
07-25-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
07-24-2006 11:01 PM


Re: here we go ...
I had prepared the following response, but have since noticed that this appears consistent with creationist positions elsewhere on the site so I hope it is not too repetetive. I suppose that happens commonly on forums like this, but I will continue to read to become more familiar with what is being said elsewhere.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their warm welcome including Faith and yourself (Razd). I hope to try to respond in a timely manner to these posts, but it will obviously not always be possible. Thanks for the tips on using the forum as well.
While I had considered a point by point response, I decided this would be long and fruitless (although I will make a few exceptions) because the majority of your counter discussion is simply the result of us not having a common understanding of each other’s positions and definitions. If we can’t even agree on what is Evolution and what is Creation, all of the debate in this forum won’t get us anywhere.
The first sentence in your response is much more appropriately applied to your position, not mine, so I’ll repeat it here with appropriate modification. “Of course [this is evidence for evolution], because you can define “evolution” any way you want to and make it fit.” It is intellectually dishonest to define Evolution as change over time. Who could possibly disagree with that? Your second definition from the dictionary (a.) is better, but you notice it also does not mention mutations as a mechanism (simply natural selection) which you scolded me for not mentioning.
Now, I realize there is a very broad range of beliefs across the entire spectrum on both sides. However, here is the definition of Evolution and Creation which in my experience are the most commonly accepted:
Evolution: ALL life has descended over millions of years by purely naturalistic means from a common ancestor which itself came from non-life. That statement is the initial and un-provable axiom for which evidence is sought. The mechanism commonly proposed for evolution is mutations coupled with natural selection. In order for this concept to be valid it must account for the formation of new and different genetic information over time.
Creation - God created the universe and all life approximately 6000 years ago according to the historical account from the bible which includes the occurrence of a worldwide flood. That statement is the initial and un-provable axiom for which evidence is sought. The original created kinds of organisms were genetically information rich allowing them to adapt successfully to diverse and changing environments through natural selection/mutation. This process entails the shuffling and loss of genetic information within their kind (to the point where many organisms can no longer successfully adapt to their environments and have become extinct).
Note that the initial axioms or presupposition are un-provable largely because they pertain to historical, not operational, science and no one was there to witness the actual events. However, Christians believe they do have an eyewitness account in the bible which provides a more logical foundation for their presupposition.
Whether you agree with those definitions or not, you can see that within their context, the finch article fits much better with the creation model than with the evolutionary one, primarily since it demonstrates that change does not require millions of years to take place. It is not evidence for evolution since the change has not added additional genetic information that wasn’t already present but is required for true evolution to occur.
No one, particularly any informed creationist, is arguing that natural select and mutation do not occur. In fact, you notice that it is a foundational mechanism of both positions. However, there has NEVER been any observed change in the direction of adding new information that evolution requires. It is mere speculation and hopeful thinking that changes within species has been extended to account for the formation of entirely different type of organisms.
And make no mistake. This article, while it talks deceptively about “micro-evolution” is being touted as proof of the “real” thing to the uniformed - the evolution that changes a dinosaur into a bird (or the other way around, depending on what article you read).
That is why it is dishonest to call this type of change “micro-evolution” because it is only evolution in the general sense that we have begun to use the term such as in the statement “automobiles have evolved over time”. No one will argue that if I wait long enough my VW bug will change into a BMW. I say this merely for humor so don’t fixate on this statement if you decide to respond.
Now, I do need to respond directly to just a few of your assertions for completeness, but I will not expound upon them since this post is already getting long.
You say:
And that [finches turn into alligators] is not what the theory of evolution claim, so it seems you do not understand what evolution really is.
No? Than it is not me that misunderstands what evolution is. I used a facetious example, but that is exactly the claim of evolution - that a single celled organism in some primordial soup eventually turned into a professor, creating all of life as we know it along the way.
You disagree that the foundations of modern science did not come from creationists? A large number of some of our most venerated scientists (including recent ones) that laid the foundations of most if not all of our major scientific disciplines found no conflict between science and creationism. Your assertion that geo-centrism or flat earth notions were perpetuated by Christians is false. These concepts are found no where in the bible. However, scientific thinking has always changed over time as more evidence is discovered or postulated. It is obviously how we interpret this evidence that accounts for our differences.
Lastly, you say the following:
Because you can cite {SOME} evidence for a position does not make it true or valid, most especially when you ignore {OTHER} evidence that disproves the position. The denial of {CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE} means that the position is false, regardless of any claims otherwise, until such time as you can show how the evidence is wrong or explain it in terms of the position claimed.
Please! I am not trying to prove creationism, simply by this single post. The evidence in my opinion is simply overwhelming for creationist theory. Contrarily, evolutionists are experts at ignoring the evidence (i.e. it only takes 10 or 20 samples to find the one that will conform to the correct pre-conceived time when attempting to date them). Whatever happened to the concept that science was the search for truth? I am not aware of a single piece of evidence that “disproves” creationism. On the other hand, I challenge you to come up with any examples of observed changes in nature which increase informational (genetic) content. They should abound if evolution is true. Transitional forms in the fossil record should also abound, but evolutionists are hard pressed to come up with even a few controversial examples. And what about soft tissue which is now being found in a large number of fossils? It is simply impossible that they could be millions of years old. How about that for ignoring the evidence? Those are just a few of literally thousands of examples.
By the way, as we understand more about genetic theory, evolutionists are beginning to abandon the concept of natural selection/mutation as the mechanism for evolution so you may soon find yourself with a completely bankrupt hypothesis (I dare not call it a theory, since the evidence does not support it).
I hope I have addressed the bulk of your objections. These posts are supposed to be fun, so perhaps I’ve taken the liberty to be a little more “forward” than I might otherwise. However, I have attempted to be as accurate as possible. It is not my intention to offend (and I have taken no offense). We should all be searching for the truth, not just for a good argument (although I expect some are in it just for the argument).
Respectfully . mw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2006 11:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 07-25-2006 9:06 PM MurkyWaters has replied
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2006 12:05 AM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 92 by AdminNWR, posted 07-27-2006 12:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 82 of 104 (335316)
07-25-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 8:07 PM


Re: here we go ...
I challenge you to come up with any examples of observed changes in nature which increase informational (genetic) content.
I can do that. The point mutation that led to hemoglobin C in the Mossi and related peoples of West Africa. They make a variant form of hemoglobin - somewhat like that of sickle-cell anemia - that makes homozygotes nearly immune to ill effects from malaria. And most folks with HbC never know they have it.
Of course, the hemoglobin S or sickle-cell mutation also adds "informational content," for English definitions of those words, to the genome. Two kinds of hemoglobin require more "instructions" to manufacture than one kind does.
The original created kinds of organisms were genetically information rich...
And how were they "genetically information rich?" Tetraploid? Hexadecaploid? How many alleles did they have for various traits like the wrinkled vs smooth seeds in Mendel's peas?
God created the universe and all life approximately 6000 years ago according to the historical account from the bible which includes the occurrence of a worldwide flood. That statement is the initial and un-provable axiom
Ah, but that "axiom" has been disproved by a couple of dozen or more separate lines of investigation from biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics. No flood. 45,000 varves in Lake Suigetsu and the Cariaco Basin. 700,000 layers in the ice in Antarctica.
But I'm veering off from finches......
See you around the forums!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 8:07 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-26-2006 1:16 AM Coragyps has replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1174 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 83 of 104 (335349)
07-26-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coragyps
07-25-2006 9:06 PM


Re: here we go ...
Thank you for your response. Man! I'm finding it almost impossible not to veer off somewhere. I think it is just human nature. I dispute your "sickle-cell" example as adding informational content. Nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral at best. Rarely, a loss or re-shuffling of genetic content has some side benefit like the loss of wings being beneficial to beetles on a windy island preventing them from being blown out to sea. Your example is this type of change. I'll be more specific in a subsequent post since I really need to get to bed!
Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that my creation
"axiom" has been disproved by a couple of dozen or more separate lines of investigation from biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and physics. No flood. 45,000 varves in Lake Suigetsu and the Cariaco Basin. 700,000 layers in the ice in Antarctica.
This is blatantly false. On the contrary, the creation axiom has been overwhelmingly supported by ALL of these fields, particularly genetics, archeology, geology and physics. 700,000 layers don't correspond to years but to snowfalls. How else can you account for the fact that an abondoned plane left there just a few years earlier was found miles under the ice? I don't remember the exact details, but again, I need to hit the sack. I'll expound further, perhaps in another forum. Se ya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 07-25-2006 9:06 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 2:55 AM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 85 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2006 7:50 AM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 86 by capeo, posted 07-26-2006 3:24 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 88 by Belfry, posted 07-26-2006 4:16 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2006 4:41 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 84 of 104 (335358)
07-26-2006 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by MurkyWaters
07-26-2006 1:16 AM


Re: here we go ...
Murky,
These informational debates will progress a lot better if you can tell us what type of information you are thinking of and especially if you can define it for us or give us some idea how to measure it.
Most creationists choose their own peculiar flavour of information, such as Gitt information over the much more commonly scientifically used Shannon information.
So if you tell us what measure of information you use and how we can tell if it is increased we can look for instances arising from mutation with maybe some natural selection thrown in for good measure.
Perhaps you would like to contribute to the ongoing thread The value of Gitt information
.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-26-2006 1:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 85 of 104 (335394)
07-26-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by MurkyWaters
07-26-2006 1:16 AM


Re: here we go ...
I dispute your "sickle-cell" example as adding informational content. Nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral at best.
What does "harmful or neutral" have to do with the amount of information? Is there "information" on the television news? Is it all cheerful happy stuff, or do plane crashes count as information also?
Does a village in Burkina Faso whose inhabitants have two genetically specified varieties of hemoglobin in their blood have less, more or the same amount of genetic "informational content" as the neighboring village that has only one variety?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-26-2006 1:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
capeo
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 104 (335497)
07-26-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MurkyWaters
07-26-2006 1:16 AM


Re: here we go ...
Nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral at best.
This is a patently false premise propounded by creationists over and over:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
This though, LOL:
This is blatantly false. On the contrary, the creation axiom has been overwhelmingly supported by ALL of these fields, particularly genetics, archeology, geology and physics. 700,000 layers don't correspond to years but to snowfalls. How else can you account for the fact that an abandoned plane left there just a few years earlier was found miles under the ice?
I'm not sure what science journals you read but they aren't the ones actual scientists are publishing in. To date there has been not one single iota of scientific evidence supporting the "creationist axiom". Your third sentence displays a complete lack of understanding of ice core dating and the general climate of Antarctica, the DRIEST continent on the planet. So please cite some sources for a plane found under miles of ice. Aside from that check out a few laymen’s sites on how ice cores are dated:
http://www.chem.hope.edu/...ik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
Ice core - Wikipedia
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
and a fairly recent (2004) technical Nature paper that displays, with great detail, the dating back to 780,000 years ago:
TYPO3 Exception
This doesn't pertain to finches so further discussion should be continued in a new post (after you've read the ascribed above).
So far, finches or no, your science is bad.
PS, the "evolutionary axiom" postulates nothing about abiogenisis. That too is a creationist attempt to make the argument philosophical rather than evidential.
Back to finches somebody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-26-2006 1:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 3:53 PM capeo has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 87 of 104 (335505)
07-26-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by capeo
07-26-2006 3:24 PM


Re: here we go ...
This is a patently false premise propounded by creationists over and over:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
I think you overstate here. Certainly there are beneficial mutations but Murky's post doesn't say that there aren't, merely that 'Nearly all' mutations are harmful or neutral.
I would say that for any given organism in any given environment the vast majority of possible mutations would be either neutral or detrimental, but that still leaves an awfully large number of possibly beneficial mutations as well. The only misleading aspect is the emphasis suggests that most will be detrimental while in fact almost all will be neutral with only a small fraction being detrimental, the detrimental fraction is still likely to outweigh the beneficial however.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by capeo, posted 07-26-2006 3:24 PM capeo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by capeo, posted 07-26-2006 6:55 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 88 of 104 (335509)
07-26-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MurkyWaters
07-26-2006 1:16 AM


Re: here we go ...
MurkyWaters writes:
This is blatantly false. On the contrary, the creation axiom has been overwhelmingly supported by ALL of these fields, particularly genetics, archeology, geology and physics. 700,000 layers don't correspond to years but to snowfalls. How else can you account for the fact that an abondoned plane left there just a few years earlier was found miles under the ice? I don't remember the exact details, but again, I need to hit the sack. I'll expound further, perhaps in another forum. Se ya.
The planes in the "Lost Squadron" were located on an active glacier near the shore of Greenland, where conditions (flowing glacier, 2m/yr snowfall) are quite different from those where ice cores are taken for analysis (stable ice fields with low accumulation).
See talkorigins creationist claim CD410

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-26-2006 1:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 89 of 104 (335518)
07-26-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MurkyWaters
07-26-2006 1:16 AM


Re: here we go ...
How else can you account for the fact that an abondoned plane left there just a few years earlier was found miles under the ice?
268 feet of ice, perhaps? And fifty years? In an actively flowing Greenland glacier in the snowiest part of the island?
The Lost Squadron (1932) — Pre-Code Hollywood Gem
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-26-2006 1:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
capeo
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 104 (335553)
07-26-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Wounded King
07-26-2006 3:53 PM


Re: here we go ...
I think you overstate here.
Actually, I should have quoted the entire paragraph that was contained in because Murky states that:
I dispute your "sickle-cell" example as adding informational content. Nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral at best. Rarely, a loss or re-shuffling of genetic content has some side benefit like the loss of wings being beneficial to beetles on a windy island preventing them from being blown out to sea. Your example is this type of change.
Which I took as meaning random recombination cannot produce anything but informational loss. A statement that has been shown to be untrue in the lab (see above) as well as through computer modeling once selection is applied. (I believe Dawkins put something like this together). I should have been more thorough(I'm also tired of that argument), sorry.
As for The Lost Squadron, I'd never heard of it, but active glaciation, 50 years and not being miles under ice certainly explains it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 3:53 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024