Encore! Encore!
Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
Plato should sue: he's clearly a victim of "Platypus envy."
Who cares? It still does not tell you if the organism from which it came from had the features of the platypus or not. Therefore does not tell you if it was a platypus or not. Therefore it does not tell you if it was the ancestor of the platypus.
In addition, as I said many posts back, even if these fossils were to be said to be ancestors of the platypus, you still cannot show where the peculiar combination of features of the platypus came from. Even those fossils had to have had ancestors according to evolution and those ancestors had to show that those features were present in them also or were in the process of being developed.
In addition to all the above there is the point I made which you continue to ignore. There are many species alive now and many others of which we have fossils. None of them, I repeat none of them, show even a close affinity to the peculiar combination of features found in the platypus. Therefore I repeat the claim which you have not been able to disprove: the platypus is strong proof that evolution is true.
BTW - Let me remind all here that the charlatan Darwin, even though the platypus had been known since the 1820's and had made a tremendous sensation when it was found, did not mention the platypus in either of his works. He knew that it was a big disproof of his theory and he knew no amount of sophistry could get around it.
From your post #517.
You are contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. Something that is identical cannot have any differences, not one. Also let me note Vade, that you just keep repeating the same statement without addressing my response.
From your post #568.
Here we go gore darling. sorry it took a while to reply, i forgot about this.
Bacterial flagellum: http://minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~e21092/flagella.htm
Prokaryote to Eukaryote: http://drnelson.utmem.edu/evolution.html
Echolocation ("sonar"): http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/zool360/L10/echo.html
And if you'd like, these papers have more information (have fun :P ):
Nice generally informative link on echolocation, but severely lacking on how this feature evolved. It does however present one of those puzzles to "randomness".
Echolocation has evolved independently several times
1. oilbirds in South America
2. swiftlets in south-east Asia
3. toothed whales, e.g. dolphins, sperm whales
4. micro-chiropteran bats
Notice birds and mammals in this picture. Why again does T-Rex not have mammaries.(Yes, I know I'm not thinking like a Darwinian, they are not exactly the same mechanism so you can't use the common ancestor thingy). I still think it shows how you can pick and choose your "evidence" for Darwinism. It is notable that complex things, involving the nervous system like eyes and sonar evolve multiple times, but rather simpler things like a modified gland that produces "milk" don't.
Yes indeed. In fact the article, by detailing how many other features of the bat were needed in order to have echolocation, makes the evolutionary descent of this even harder to fathom. Also it should be noted, that if echolocation was not as accurate as it is, they would not be able to feed themselves. Gradual evolution of this near perfect system could never have happened.
Hence, the "Blind as a bat" tease. :^)
i thought it answered questions well...will nothing be sufficient?
Since man and chimp are from two different genealogical families, the above statements are clearly contradictory. In addition, since man and chimp branched apart over 5 million years ago, it is highly unlikely that if cytochrome c was a molecular clock for evolution (as evolutionists claim) that there would be absolutely no differences in the cytochrome c of man and chimp. Therefore this example is a disproof of evolution.
Indentical proteins in humans and chimps is a disproof of evolution!?! M-kay...
Note to lurkers: many proteins are identical or very similar in humans and chimps, but by no means all. Generally those that are most variable among species overall are also most variable between humans and chimps. Cytochrome c is among the least variable proteins, and one must compare organisms separated by hundreds of millions of years to find sequence divergences over 50 percent.
Lurkers should read some of the other articles among the 29 evidences concerning molecular data, the point being that there are multiple interlocking patterns that are explained by common descent, but are gratuitous, unaccountable or improbable otherwise. I won't go into the details here, but there are, for instance, families of proteins that evolved from gene duplications. In this case the assumption of common descent requires that certain general patterns must obtain when the same proteins are compared between different species AND when different proteins within the family are compared in a given species AND when the different proteins within a protein family are compared among different species. IOW the sequences must simultaneously betray evidence both of the evolution of one or more protein(s) from another protein AND of the sequential divergences of each protein as the result of subsequent speciation events.
Wrong. Identical proteins can be produced by non-identical genes. Note VadeRetro said the difference was in the NUCLEOTIDE sequence, i.e. a "silent mutation".
Dr Nelson does not answer, so I cannot comment on him.
The flagella response is rather crippled. Statements such as --- "The Filament (propellor) is composed of the proteins FlaA and FlaB, deletion of FlaB doesn't seem to do much, and deletion of FlaA results in trucated flagella, and have some motility, so it would appear that the actual propellor is not IC (2,11)." show that he has a skewed understanding of IC. You need a propelling object for a complex propelling system and the lack of IC for one part of IC structure has no bearing on the IC of the structure itself unless that particular part is IC which would then make the entire structure IC. The statement appears superfluous in the context of the flagella. The following statements also are harmful to the argument.
I'll ignore the L and P rings (FlgH, FlgI), as these can be absent or present without any effects on flagella function, so can't be part of the IC core :-)
The rod (driveshaft) is comprosed of a complex of the proteins FlgG, FlgB, FlgC, FlgF and FliJ, P, Q, R, I don't have any information about muations of these.
The M ring is formed from FliF, again, I don't have any info on mutations of this.
The flagellum certainly is complex, even irreducibly complex in this canonical form, but can it evolve? Well, there is still a lot unknown about eubacterial flagella, but we can get some ideas, and a plausible pathway from the literature.
There is no aparent homolog of the motor (MotAB) in type III secretory systems.
As an argument for the "accidental" formation of a complex object, I consider it bilge. As a "Just So" story it is nice.
IIRC, his colleagues called him "Barnacle Chuck". (IIRC.)
Working my way down the thread, shaking my head in awestruck sadness at the slow, oblivious train wreck...
It's a highly conserved gene to have had only one mutation since humans and chimps diverged.
Your usual garbage.
First of all the article says the cytochrome c's of chimps and humans are identical. ARE YOU NOW SAYING THAT THE ARTICLE THAT YOU AND OTHERS CONSTANTLY GIVE AS PROOF OF EVOLUTION WAS A LIE?????????
Gore, the article says this: "Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence."
Vade said "It's a highly conserved gene to have had only one mutation since humans and chimps diverged."
Now do you see a contradiction between those two statements?
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.