Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Challenges for anti-evolutionists

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    ... From: Joe Martin To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:40 AM Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Challenges for anti-evolutionists
    Message 1 of 45 , May 31, 2011
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Joe Martin
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:40 AM
      Subject: RE: [OriginsTalk] Re: Challenges for anti-evolutionists






      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Thomas
      To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 12:14 AM
      Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Challenges for anti-evolutionists

      LA> Thus the origin of life from a SINGLE original form of life seems to
      have been the view that has been widely held by most evolutionists. On the
      other hand the many "beginnings" view could be seen as moving dangerously
      towards the Creation science view.

      JM: Toward the Creation Science(sic) view. Show me where conventional science
      is moving closer to "6000 years ago God went POOF and everything happened in
      6 days



      LA> Evolution is NOT, of course, conventional science -- and never was. Conventional science says the following;

      -------------------
      "The temptation to believe that the Universe is the
      product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle
      aesthetic and mathematical judgement, is overwhelming."

      "The belief that there is "something behind it all" is
      one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of
      physicists."

      (Paul Davies, "The Christian perspective of a scientist".
      New Scientist, 2 June 1983, p.638.)

      =============

      Laurie.

      "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
      (Niles Eldredge, leading Punk-eek evolutionist, 1995)

      g






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Palm
      Gluadys: But what do the archeal genomes show when compared with those of bacteria and eukaryota? Do they show something completely different, or do they show
      Message 45 of 45 , Jun 7, 2011
        Gluadys: But what do the archeal genomes show when compared with those of
        bacteria and eukaryota? Do they show something completely different, or do
        they show similarities? If there are similarities, are they more similar to
        bacteria or to eukarya? Without doing the comparative study, how can you
        have any evidence that they do not show the interrelationships of the three
        groups? As far as "looking alike" goes, visually, archea are pretty much
        indistinguishable from bacteria, which is why they were not recognized as a
        distinct group for so long. They are quite different morphologically from
        eukarya. Genetically and biochemically, though, there are features of both
        archea and bacteria in eukarya. What could explain this? Do you know what
        the current theory on the origin of eukarya is?

        Charles P: Thank you for your questions. You are a good teacher. Please
        teach us your version of science and I will try to respond with what I have
        learned from Understanding Evolution and other "current theory" sources.

        Gluadys: Tell me how you came to this conclusion ("this link does not
        provide DNA evidence of common ancestry") without actually comparing
        archeal, bacterial and eukaryotic genomes.

        Charles P: There are no names of common ancestors mentioned at the link.

        Gluadys: Where is the collection which contains your "instant" American
        proverb?

        Charles P: Please excuse my sense of humor. I just made up that American
        proverb. As far as I know, it does not exist. However, using a Chinese
        proverb to explain "descent with modification" does not seem to be
        scientific.

        Gluadys: Sure it is. We have just as much genetic evidence of the
        relationships between species to infer common ancestry as we have of the
        relationships between individuals that show common ancestry. The only
        difference is that we can assume that for thousands of years, your human
        ancestors had personal names, but ancestors who lived before speech did not.
        But we don't know the personal names of your ancestors, do we? Does that
        mean they didn't exist? Did your ancestors come from Europe? (An English
        name doesn't guarantee that as many people of African and Amerindian descent
        have adopted English names.) If you do trace your ancestry to Europe, you
        are very probably (95% certainty) the descendant of one of seven women. They
        have been given names (not the ones their families used for them, but names
        invented by the geneticist who did the research): Ursula, Xenia, Helena,
        Velda, Tara, Katrine, Jasmine.

        Gluadys: Do you know which one is your ancestor? Assuming the answer is
        "No" does that mean she didn't exist? Well, then, how is it that you and
        several thousand other people (at least) carry the same mitochondrial genome
        as her? Furthermore, once we have determined which of these women was your
        ancestor, suppose we found dozens of female skeletons of the correct age in
        the correct place. Would you be able to say which of them was your ancestor?

        Charles P: The answer is "Yes"... for my wife. She sent in a sample and
        got a mitochondrial DNA as Jasmine 1. Jasmine 1 would be a fossil on her
        lineage, not a common ancestor. Common ancestors do not have names.

        Gluadys: Assuming the answer is "No" does that mean your ancestor never
        existed? The maternal ancestor of all living human beings has been named
        Mitochondrial Eve. But which of the several thousand women in her generation
        was she? Does the fact we don't have her fossil, and couldn't identify which
        was hers if we did have it mean she never existed? If we can't identify
        with certainty individual ancestors, even with fossils, that we know
        existed, within our own species, why should we be able to identify more
        remote ancestors with that level of certainty? OTOH, why should we ignore
        the genetic and morphological, geological, developmental and geographical
        evidence that they did, in fact, exist?

        Charles P: I believe that this is where you and many people discover the
        fallacy of the "current theory". As soon as the DNA evidence confirms
        ancestry, then all doubts disappear. The "current theory" has no DNA
        evidence for ancestry and teaches students to believe in "descent with
        modification" without naming the common ancestors.

        Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_03
        Ancestors
        are real people or real fossils with names. Common ancestors do not have
        names at Understanding Evolution. Species have names. Common ancestors are
        not species.

        Gluadys: Of course it is. When you are discussing the ancestry of species,
        every name is a group name. And when you are discussing species without the
        capacity of speech, the only names possible are those paleontologists use to
        label fossils. It was Adam who named the animals; they didn't name
        themselves. So Homo, is the name of the group that includes the common
        ancestor of the genus and all the descendants of that ancestor. Hominin is
        the name of the common ancestor and all its descendants more closely related
        to Homo than to Pan (chimpanzee). And, as is expected, when fossil hominids
        of about 5-7 mya are found, it is not at all clear whether they are more
        closely related to Homo or to Pan. This is to be expected on the cusp of a
        speciation.

        Charles P: Where is this imaginary "cusp of a speciation"? Understanding
        Evolution does not use that word. Group names are not the names of common
        ancestors.

        Gluadys: The names are given, and there are plenty of pictures at those
        links to show you what they look like.

        Charles P: Names are given for species, fossils, organisms, etc. Common
        ancestors are not species, nor fossils, nor organisms. According to the
        "current theory", speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two
        or more separate species.

        Charles P: To prove my point, please name the common ancestor in our
        lineage that split to produce Australopithecus and Homo. Please show a link
        to pictures of the common ancestor of Australopithecus and Homo. Without
        that information, I will conclude that common ancestors exist ONLY in the
        philosophy of the "current theory".

        Gluadys: Oh, I understand what you are saying and I understand why it is a
        false conclusion.

        Charles P: Thank you for investing the time to understand what I have been
        saying. We don't all have to agree, just try to understand one another.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.