| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
There certainly is and it is proven by your inability to refute any of the scientific evidence mentioned in the abiogenesis article on post#11. Let me give you a few problems:
1. DNA - it would take a series of over half a million DNA base pairs to code for the simplest life.
2. Pasteur - proved that life does not arise from non-living matter.
3. RNA - cannot reproduce by itself.
Oh I see, any crazy idea can be called science - NOT.
As to articles, you have not even posted a single link in support of your statements. You have not even described your hypothesis as to how life arose from non-living matter. You are just blowing smoke in the face of strong scientific evidence against abiogenesis. Let's hear your hypothesis, post it right here for discussion. You dare not do it because you know it will be shot down as ridiculous in the blink of an eye.
I did not say that mutations always produce non functional genes. All species have two slightly different genes for the same function (alleles) which work pretty well. Whether this is due to mutation or creation is the discussion here. Therefore some small changes in the gene can be non-detrimental. However, such changes, because they will not significantly change function, are also non-evolutionary. At least they are insufficient to transform a species significantly from one genus to another.
The problem that the high level of detrimental mutations poses to the theory of evolution is that it clearly limits the amount of mutations that can occur per generation of a species. If it is too large numerous progeny will be destroyed by random mutations occurring on genes which are totally essential for continued functioning. If it is too small then there will have been insufficient time for evolution to have occurred in the time that has passed since life first arose on earth. Now billions of years seem like a long time, however, this large period needs to be cut by the supposed time of descent from one species to another. The supposed time of descent from reptiles to mammals for example is just some 50 million years. The tremendous amount of changes that needed to take place in such time are clearly cast in serious doubt by the necessary slowness of change required by the above.
Common descent requires evolution. Evolution does not require common descent.
You imply that you are disagreeing with me, but you are actually confirming my point. Evolution and common descent go hand in hand - unless of course you are asserting that there is a lot of evolution going on without new life forms arising. I am sure you are not saying such a thing so in spite of your hair-splitting my statement is correct.
Nope. It is evolutionists that view selection as an active force, not me. They attribute to selection the creation of all new forms of life after the first living thing. That seems pretty active to me!
You seem to be assuming that everything in the evolutionary world is black-and-white. That is, that a mutation is either non-adaptive and dies out or it is adaptive and uses up all the resources, killing off the non-mutant. Variations in species can coexist without killing one another off if there is no great competition for resources.
Selection, and transformation of species is supposed to arise due to environmental influences forcing a species to change. If this were to be correct, then those that do not change should be dead. Clearly this does not occur since we have so many of the simpler life forms still around. A more plausible explanation for adaptation than evolution is that the large redundancy in the genome of living things, the large amount of alleles giving all species a broad genetic pool from which to adapt are the source of what we see as changes in species. This is clearly understood by science. Species with a very limited genetic pool for example are very likely to become extinct, thoroughbred species such as those which humans have selected for such as in dogs and horses are far more fragile and less long lived than 'wild' species which have not undergone a large amount of inbreeding.
It sure did. It showed that homo sapiens did not descend from the only 'hominid' species known to have been around when homo sapiens arose. Therefore, as far as science is concerned there are no known ancestors to man.
BTW - note how all the little building blocks of evolution postulated by the charlatan Darwin are slowly being destroyed by real science. First the monkeys were thrown out, and most recently, the last great hope of evolutionists - Neanderthal - has been disproven as an ancestor to man.
It is you who does not listen. The reason these 'archaics' are not classified as anything is because there is insufficient evidence to classify them. Believe me, paleontologists indulge in very wild speculations, even going to the extent of classifying two teeth as the ancestors of a toothless species, and they do not dare classify those fossils as homo sapiens. Therefore, your evidence is such bunk that not even those on your side of the fence dare to call it ancestors of homo sapiens.
Because you say so I guess. Well that is proof of nothing. Mutations can do all kinds of crazy things so they are not proof of descent. This is another example of the circular reasoning of evolutionists - they hold that mutations prove evolution - but only when they prove evolution. What a joke!
So what? I am allowed to speak here am I not? I am allowed to make my own points am I not? The point, which you are trying to evade by this non-sequitur is that you cannot blame man for the extinction of the numerous intermediate species, the numerous 'missing links' which evolutionists cannot find.
All the orbits are elliptical as radio astronomer's post shows. As to how "wild" they are is pure semantics, sort of like the meaning of 'alone' (in a room, in a building, in a city, in a country, on earth, in the universe). I will not waste my time with such hair-splitting.
Ambiguous evidence is not the same as insufficient evidence. Even non-creationist scientists lump things into bins for convenience. Only creationists think the bin boundaries are real and inviolable.
But what's really going on is common descent with modification. Many of the hominid fossils have some features of erectus, some features of neandertal, or maybe some features of erectus, some features of archaic sapiens. Archaic sapiens is a real species in real use. The species intergrades in its beginnings with erectus and with its descendant species H. sapiens (modern) and H. sapiens neandertalensis.
Do a Yahoo! on it and you get 1260 hits. There's a real species out there by that name. It resides in and fills exactly the spot in which you try to allege a gap, hence your refusal to see it.
You have been shown all this before. On thread after thread, you have been shown all this over and over. But on every new thread, there you go again.
I say this, trying to watch my spelling, trying to make as much sense as possible, knowing that within a day it will probably read "Post nnn deleted by the Moderator."
You're a coward.
Note the difference between a thing not being lumped into a bin and it not existing at all.
Yes, there is indeed quite a lot of information in what must be considered a quite small genome. There is clearly some regulators telling what a gene is supposed to do. All the cells of an organism have exactly the same genome for example, yet they develop quite differently and have wildly different functions. We also know that there are triggers telling the organism to do certain things at certain times and not at other times, sweating to cool down the body when we are hot is one example. Therefore organisms are clearly adaptable.
In regards to this triggering effect, the following is quite instructive. The distal-less gene was long believed to be the creator of limbs, however, it is only a part of the system which produces them as the following explains (another evolutionist 'assumption' proven wrong):
The discovery that limb primordia expressed the Distal-less gene at their most distal tips was an extraordinarily exciting finding (Cohen et al., 1990; Panganiban et al., 1994). Since the parapodia (abdominal legs) of butterfly caterpillars expressed the Distal-less gene in the same manner as the beginnings of the thoracic legs of both butterflies and Drosophila, it was thought that the parapodia could indeed be considered as partially formed legs. Similarly, the observation that the Distal-less gene was expressed in Drosophila maxilla and labia primordia, as well as in the thoracic legs rudiments, leant credence to the paleontological conviction that insect jaws were modified leg segments. It appeared that Distal-less expression was the developmental signal to form limbs.
Panganiban and colleagues (1997) have extended this research to other animals and found that Distal-less did not encode the instructions for "limbedness." Rather, Distal-less seems to tell the structure in which it is expressed to "stick itself out" from the main body axis. For instance, Distal-less was found to be in the five tube "feet" of sea urchins, certainly not limbs in the usual sense. This protein is seen in the tube feet cells prior to metamorphosis, before the cells expressing Distal-less grow out from the body wall. The spines of the sea urchin, which also protrude from the body axis, also express Distal-less protein (Figure 1).
From: Distal-Less: Instructions to stick it out
(Cue flashback/dream-sequence ripples)
Junior makes a general statement in post 283 about the planetary orbits:
...nearly circular orbits of the planets...
gore3000 unloads on Junior in post 472:
The orbits of the planets are wildly elliptical. Some of the planets [Note: plural] that we think of as nearer to the sun are at times further out than those we consider farther from the sun. You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.
RadioAstronomer posts a correction in post 486 (he shows his work for extra credit):
{orbit data snip} If you notice only two planets have a high eccentricity; Mercury and Pluto. Only one of them cross the mean distance of another planet from the Sun and that is Pluto and Neptune. Briefly Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune when [Pluto] is at perihelion.
The eccentricity of our planet's orbit is mild; aphelion and perihelion differ from the mean Sun-Earth distance by less than 2%. In fact, if you drew Earth's orbit on a sheet of paper it would be difficult to distinguish from a perfect circle and that is with e = 0.0167.
gore3000 publishes post 493 wherein he pitches a hissy fit about being corrected while simultaneious pretending that Junior started the whole thing:
All the orbits are elliptical as radio astronomer's post shows. As to how "wild" they are is pure semantics, sort of like the meaning of 'alone' (in a room, in a building, in a city, in a country, on earth, in the universe). I will not waste my time with such hair-splitting.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war, already in progress...
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.