Posted on 11/01/2009 4:02:49 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Life is not a naturalistic phenomenon with unlimited evolutionary potential as Darwin proposed. It is intelligently designed, ruled by immutable laws, and survives only because it has a built-in
facilitated variation mechanism for continually adapting to internal and external challenges and changes. The essential components are: functional molecular architecture and machinery, modular switching cascades that control the machinery and a signal network that coordinates everything. All three are required for survival, so they must have been present from the beginning—a conclusion that demands intelligent design. Life’s built-in ability to adapt and diversify looks like Darwinian evolution, but it is not. Darwin’s theory of speciation via natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle, but it cannot be extrapolated to universal ancestry. What we see instead is different kinds of organisms having been designed for different kinds of lifestyles, with enormous potential for diversification built-in at the beginning, but with time this potential for diversification has become depleted by selection and degraded by mutations so that we are now rapidly heading towards extinction. Intelligent design and rapid decay point to recent Creation and Fall, as the Bible tells us...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
==Exactly the opposite of the way things actually are.
Could you please be specific. Thank you.
[typical evo with hands over ears yelling] LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU...
You forgot to ping me.
I thought God created life?
“Exactly the opposite of the way things actually are.”
Well, that seems clear enough. Which word would you like me to define?
If you actually read the articles you post, and frankly I would be amazed if you did, as it would require speed if not comprehension, then you might realize that this individual is arguing that life is evolving from complexity to simplicity.
Perhaps he has been influenced by “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, but the real world doesn’t work that way.
As has been offered to you, polyploidy is an instance in which primarily plant species double their chromosomes, affording themselves a kind of hybrid vigor. That would be extremely difficult to operate in reverse.
Something similar happens among animal species, when germline or gamete cell division allows some lines to have longer than normal chromosomal links. It also means that others get short shrift, but they usually die off quickly from lacking the necessary instructions and procedures.
It is the ones with extra material that become interesting, as they have a few more pages to work with for experimental purposes. It is through such a mechanism that I suggest certain simians gained additional retinal pigments which provided three-color vision, and for birds to have four-color vision.
Most mammals are limited to two pigments of light sensitivity. How you, or your predecessors, view the world can change the way you live in it, and color vision is a prime example of that.
Color vision allowed primates to find and select fruits in season, and gave them an advantage in an arboreal environment.
Of course, you’ve heard this before. My point is that it was the perhaps accidental doubling of a particular stretch of chromosomal information, passed down to offspring without harm for generations, and then subtly modified through serendipitous mutation, that allowed multiple pigment vision to thrive.
Your author has it twisted round an entirely different way, presuming that the majority of mammals had a more complete set of instructions that has somehow become corrupted in a way that benefits us because we end up with more information in our genome.
Forgive me for pointing it out, but that makes absolutely no sense.
Surely you must “see” that?
It makes sense to them because if it didn't, they would have no cult to belong to.
That all sounds well and good, but you have yet to provide a single empirical example of any of your mechanisms leading to macroevolution. Why don’t you pick one or more of them, and demonstrate how it/they effected a step-by-step macroevolutionary transformation. Or is that too much too ask from the evolution is a fact crowd?
There has been some excellent research performed at the University of Osaka in which they demonstrate that an arbitrary sequence can evolve towards acquiring functional role when fused with other pre-existing protein modules. At the risk of being characterized an atheist (which I am not), a heretic (which I am not), a worshiper at the Temple of Darwin (which I do not), or a jack booted evo (which I am not), I would recommend that the study be read: http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Files/Hayashi%20-%20phage%20evolution%20experiment.pdf
see post #29
Get over yourself, dude. If you have something to say, just say it.
You are much too old to refer to anyone as "dude" without looking as contrived as Harrison Ford's earring. In the meantime I will continue to contribute fact, logic, and a Catholic Intelligent Design perspective to the discussion.
PS If polyploidy is a major driver of evolution, and is so common among plants, then how come plants have remained largely unchanged after supposedly 58 million years?:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200910.htm#20091030a
Catholic Ingelligent Design....now we’re getting somewhere! How does one identify intelligent causes in Catholic Intelligent Design?
Fine. Let us just stop there, then. I told you that your author had things backward, and you seem to have accepted it. It's good to see that you may have some learning potential after all.
"... but you have yet to provide a single empirical example of any of your mechanisms leading to macroevolution."
But you see, I do not need to do that. That would be a waste of my time as well as yours, and we both know it. You will not accept even the clear evidence of your own senses, so why would you accept anything I or anyone else would assert?
You must come to an understanding of the world on your own. We can offer guidance, but if you insist on walking around with blinkered eyes, how could we bring your attention to the truth?
Good night :o)
What do you mean by "largely unchanged"? One notable recent example is wheat. The University of Houston's College of Engineering has done extensive research into evolution of wheat. They have found that up to 10,000 years ago (circa 8000 BC) the ancestor of wheat more closely resembled a wild grass than the heavy grain-bearing plant we eat today. Then a mutation occurred in which this plant was crossed with another grass. The result was a fertile hybrid called emmer with edible seeds that blew in the wind and sowed themselves.
Then a second genetic mutation occurred sometime between 8000 and 6000 B.C. This mutation yielded something very close to our modern wheat, with its much plumper grain.
Same with corn.
Duuuuuuuddddde!
There are literally thousands of examples but that would require some to remove the scales from their eyes to see them......
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.