Posted on 03/05/2009 8:03:43 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
...
In an SF State news release, Randall said that “we must rethink our evolutionary models of hormones” because “we see species specific adaptation of control systems.”1 Darwinian evolution would predict that once a hormone control system evolved in a common ancestor, that system should be retained in its descendants—the creatures that are alive today. But this is not what scientists have observed. The same hormone does not produce the same effect in similar tissues of different species, or kinds.
What would the survival advantage be for an organism to spend its precious energy inventing new solutions to technical problems that are already solved by the functional hormonal control systems it currently possesses? And yet, if evolution is true, that must have happened multiple times.
Randall found distinct hormone control systems within distinct kinds, just as the creation model would predict. Each hormone switches on or off a certain cellular process, and that process only makes sense in the context of that animal kind’s overall physiology. Like other foundational concepts provided by God in His Word, the principle of kinds reproducing according to their basic forms has never been invalidated by scientific observation...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ping!
Completely depends on what the species can afford. Why do peacocks have large, elaborate, heavy, colorful tails that often pose a risk to its escape from harm's way?
Because they can afford to keep it, natural-selection-wise.
Thanks for the ping!
BWAHAHAHAHA! Creationism is a fact from Day One until the 1850s when Paleo-Communists hijack a kooky British wanderer with a kooky idea about everything coming from one cell. Looks Like Marx is going to have to find himself a new cracked pot theory to fool the masses with. Remember, Karl thinks religion is the opium of the masses. Frankly, Karl, I think ignorance is the opium of the masses!
The idea of Biblical “kinds” is one that has no scientific support or that has even been adequately defined.
Biblical literalists CLAIM to disbelieve in evolution, but then claim that all existing animal species descended from a few “kinds” that could fit on a boat of known dimensions; evolution at a speed and of a scope that is simply not supported by anything observed in the scientific literature. Their one proviso to this rampant evolution “within kinds” is that somehow, by some unknown and undefined mechanism, this robust and rapid evolution cannot change an organism outside of its “kind”.
Since "science" has never observed this to happen, one would tend to think they're on safe ground with that assessment.
questions asked in here are obvious to first-year biology students.
Today's Creo's try to evade the "perfect chair" business, but that used to be a big part of the deal. Frankly, they should tell us how those "perfect chairs" work to conserve "chair forms".
I guess you too didn’t get the memo:
Anything that doesn’t involve Stone Age literature, complete with the only man, the only woman, made out of that man’s rib, and that cute, super-clever talking snake, can’t be true.
We can discuss burning, talking bushes, and self-inscribing laser-etched stones too, but for that we need to wait for the masses to get further dumbed down. After all, these things only happen 2000-3000 years ago, after which said physical properties ceased to function as natural laws. The fact that it pairs itself with massive human ignorance, is but purely coincidential.
I'll bite. Where can I get a comprehensive list of kinds, and which species belong to which kind? This kind of statement is predicated upon kinds being well-defined, so I suppose such a list must exist somewhere. On the www, evolutionists have Tree of Life Web and, well, Wikipedia. What do YECs bring to the table?
Ah but that 'shining' one god of knowledge did whisper into the woman's ear.... touch me and you will live forever and planted the seeds from which the Darwinist still cultivate to this day.
Hm.... That doesn't really make sense, though. If we take your peacock example, would we really say that the presence of their tail is explained by their "keeping it" in the face of lower-cost alternatives?
If you look closely at the statement, it would tend to imply that all types of birds started out with big, flashy tails and natural selection only "dispensed" with them as (and if) the cost got too high.
In fact, the "selection" mechanism that probably best explains a peacock's tail is much different. We might call it the "Hollywood" motive or, if you really want an example, the "fake porn boobs" dynamic. The idea would be that natural selection operates in the realm of what it takes to get laid. Why do female porn stars tend to have fake boobs? Because they get more business that way. For peacocks, the dymamic is that "chicks dig big tails, and guys with bigger tails are therefore more likely to get laid." Greater likelihood of getting laid, means greater likelihood of the "big tail" gene getting passed along to the next generation. (There have actually been studies on "wing bar" size in sparrows to support the idea.)
In that sense, it's only secondarily a matter of "what the species can afford." The primary motivation in peacocks is the same thing that drives Hollywood and porn: a "cultural" idea of what defines sexual attractiveness.
Sexual cues do not necessarily explain the issue here, of course -- the question in this case is what selection mechanism would drive different "kinds" to employ similar hormones as differently as they apparently do? (Assuming, of course, that ICR has fully and honestly presented the scientific facts... which I suspect they have not.)
Again, I don't think it would be a matter of "affording it," which again implies changes based on some initial "optimized" state. Like the peacock, the underlying mechanism would bave to be more along the lines of "optimized function through added cost," that arose from some common, lower-cost base state.
Don’t pay her?
Obviously, if you make too many changes to a chair, it is no longer a chair and no longer a part of the chair baramin. Take away the chair's back, and you have a stool. Stools are still members of the "Things You Sit On" apobaramin, but they are not the same created kind. (It may seem possible that Noah only brought one or the other aboard the ark, and stools micro-evolved from chairs--or vice versa--but the second law of thermodynamics clearly makes this impossible.) Increase the angle between the seat and the back too much, and you end up with things like divans or sofas. Take away too many of the chair's legs, and it topples over, like removing too many proteins from an E. coli flagellum. Certain aspects of the chair are irreducibly complex.
Paleo-Communists hijack a kooky British wanderer with a kooky idea about everything coming from one cell.
_________
Ahhh, timelines.
Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, while the Origin of the Species was not published until 1859.
Challenging, is it not, to hijack something that will not exist for another dozen years?
Moreover Creationists propose no mechanism whereby this rapid and robust evolution they believe in must of necessity stop at the “kind” barrier. Moreover there is as much or more genetic difference between species of the same “kind” than there is between humans and chimpanzee's; which all creationists who play the “kind” game acknowledge are separate “kinds”.
You bring up a good question. Why do I believe what I believe? I’ll let you know that is. I believe God wrote the 66 books of canonized scripture and that He didn’t write anything else. Every word is true and is profitable for every person who lives now and for those in the past who had opportunity to come in contact with it. Those who didn’t have that opportunity are without excuse because the creation told them about God. If they had earnestly sought Him, He would have made Himself known.
Now why do I believe that? I guess there are several reasons and it would take a book to explain. Let this be a summery. I know there’s a God, anyone who doesn’t is fooling themselves. I know I’m a sinner and God is perfect. I know God wants to have a relationship with me or He wouldn’t have created me. Since that’s the case, wouldn’t He tried to communicate with me? In His wisdom He created a book. The book of Mormon? The Koran? Ramblings of Buddha? No. All of those fail even the most cursory observations about human nature, physical nature, and history.
So I guess the book I was talking about that would explain why I believe what I believe is the Word of God itself. Circular reasoning? I don’t think so. Considering it’s God’s Word and He’s the source of all wisdom. But let’s say it is circular reasoning. It’s no more so than deriving one’s paradigm from humanist books.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.