Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Sadly this thread has been hijacked by a Juevanille display of trolling. You big meanies leave poor little Dixie alone!
An Evolution Primer for Creationists
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
More evidence of Macroevolution.
Homologies provide powerful evidence of macroevoltuion.
The fact that body parts are very similar, not only in different species, but at different phyla's as well provides strong evidence for macroevolution. For example the radius bone of the forelimbs of humans, bats and whales are anatomically homologous. Though used for different functions, throwing, swimming and flying it is evident that they have the same basic structural plan, the same relationship to other body parts and develop in a similar manner in the embryo. It seems very unlikely that these pattern of bones represent the best possible structures to accomplish the different functions to which these forelimbs are put. However, if we interpret the persistence of the basic pattern as evidence of inheritance from a common ancestor we see that the various modifications are adaptations of the basic plan to the special needs of the organism. This tells us that evolution is opportunistic, working with materials that have been handed down by inheritance. This is powerful evidence for macroevolution and against Intelligent Design because these anatomical homologies, of which I just sited one of thousands of examples, violate the fundamental principle of design that the best design solution be applied to a given function. Since anatomical homologies violate the design principle and show clear evidence of inheritance from a common ancestor this is strong evidence for macroevolution and powerful evidence against Ingelligent Design.
Embryonic homologies again provide more powerful evidence for macro evolution. At the pharyngula stage of embryonic development, the development of differant phyla's, for example from, fish, salamanders, chicken, turtle, rabbit, horses and humans are virtually identical morphologically. They all contain a notochord, a dorsal hollow nerve cord, a post anal tail and a series of paired branchial grooves. This nearly indentical embryological stage between species and even phylias only makes sense if they were inherited via common ancestry and again violates design principle.
Homologies provide powerful evidence of macroevoltuion.
The fact that body parts are very similar, not only in different species, but at different phyla's as well provides strong evidence for macroevolution. For example the radius bone of the forelimbs of humans, bats and whales are anatomically homologous. Though used for different functions, throwing, swimming and flying it is evident that they have the same basic structural plan, the same relationship to other body parts and develop in a similar manner in the embryo. It seems very unlikely that these pattern of bones represent the best possible structures to accomplish the different functions to which these forelimbs are put. However, if we interpret the persistence of the basic pattern as evidence of inheritance from a common ancestor we see that the various modifications are adaptations of the basic plan to the special needs of the organism. This tells us that evolution is opportunistic, working with materials that have been handed down by inheritance. This is powerful evidence for macroevolution and against Intelligent Design because these anatomical homologies, of which I just sited one of thousands of examples, violate the fundamental principle of design that the best design solution be applied to a given function. Since anatomical homologies violate the design principle and show clear evidence of inheritance from a common ancestor this is strong evidence for macroevolution and powerful evidence against Ingelligent Design.
Embryonic homologies again provide more powerful evidence for macro evolution. At the pharyngula stage of embryonic development, the development of differant phyla's, for example from, fish, salamanders, chicken, turtle, rabbit, horses and humans are virtually identical morphologically. They all contain a notochord, a dorsal hollow nerve cord, a post anal tail and a series of paired branchial grooves. This nearly indentical embryological stage between species and even phylias only makes sense if they were inherited via common ancestry and again violates design principle.
Last edited:
C
Cancel5
Guest
You so understand evolution, you are a genius! Jeezus Gawd Bag Man! Grab a biology book and learn what really goes on in evolution. When you make statements like this, you leave no doubt that you have not even had high school level biology! gads!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Even more evidence of macroevolution.
Molecular Homologies;
The fact that different species share similar biological structures and functions at a molecular and subcellular level is evidence for macroevolution. Geneticist can correlate many of these to the genetic molecular sequences that produce these molecular structures to sets of ubiquitous genes that all living organisms have as they are essential to life. These molecular homolgies are powerful evidence of macroevolution.
An example of this would be cytochrome C which is an essential and vital protein found in all organisms, including prokaryotic organisms (i.e. bacteria) and eukayrotes. It is found in the matrix of the mitochondria where it transports oxygen in the fundamental aerobic metabolic process oxidative phophorylation which, as an adjunct to the citric acid cycle (aka Krebb's cycle), converts simples sugars, using oxygen, into high energy phosphate chemical bonds in the form of adinosine triphosphate (ATP) which is used at the cellular level to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy.
Logic would indicate that there would be no reason for two different ogranizms to use the same protein sequence or even similiar protein sequences unless the two organisms are genealogically related. Experimental evidence bears this out using our example of the protein cytochrome c. Keep in mind, cytochrome C is absolutely essential to life. Yet when scientist delete the cytochrome c ubiquitous gene from a yeast cell and introduce human cytochrome c into the yeast cell the yeast cell continues to function even though the molecular sequence of the yeast cell cytochrome c can vary by as much as 40% from human cytochrome c. This same experiment works equally as well when the cytochrome c from insects, fish, birds and other mammals were used. This form of functional protein redundancy is very strong evidence for common descent and macroevolution.
Molecular Homologies;
The fact that different species share similar biological structures and functions at a molecular and subcellular level is evidence for macroevolution. Geneticist can correlate many of these to the genetic molecular sequences that produce these molecular structures to sets of ubiquitous genes that all living organisms have as they are essential to life. These molecular homolgies are powerful evidence of macroevolution.
An example of this would be cytochrome C which is an essential and vital protein found in all organisms, including prokaryotic organisms (i.e. bacteria) and eukayrotes. It is found in the matrix of the mitochondria where it transports oxygen in the fundamental aerobic metabolic process oxidative phophorylation which, as an adjunct to the citric acid cycle (aka Krebb's cycle), converts simples sugars, using oxygen, into high energy phosphate chemical bonds in the form of adinosine triphosphate (ATP) which is used at the cellular level to convert chemical energy into mechanical energy.
Logic would indicate that there would be no reason for two different ogranizms to use the same protein sequence or even similiar protein sequences unless the two organisms are genealogically related. Experimental evidence bears this out using our example of the protein cytochrome c. Keep in mind, cytochrome C is absolutely essential to life. Yet when scientist delete the cytochrome c ubiquitous gene from a yeast cell and introduce human cytochrome c into the yeast cell the yeast cell continues to function even though the molecular sequence of the yeast cell cytochrome c can vary by as much as 40% from human cytochrome c. This same experiment works equally as well when the cytochrome c from insects, fish, birds and other mammals were used. This form of functional protein redundancy is very strong evidence for common descent and macroevolution.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Man! The Divine Creator sure was a smart one to incorporate that process into all living things, wasn't He? Now, if you could show us some evidence that any single genus ever transformed into another unique genus, it might help to support your cockamamie idea we all evolved from corn! I happen to think, whatever created us, also created the corn, the fish, the birds, etc. And endowed us all with the attributes to change and grow with time, and adapt to environment when needed.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I fixed your mistype.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Fixed it better.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Why yes Dixie. These natural processes, such as biological evolution, our creater has bestowed upon us are indeed wondrous beautiful to behold but what does that have to do with a discussion on science? If you're going to contribute here, please try to stay on topic.
You still really don't understand common descent do you? The evidence I've showed you on molecular homologies shows that these similar biochemical processes are genealogically related and that sometime in the far ancient past both corn and humans had common ancestry.
How many times do you have to be told that Evolutionary theory makes no prediction of a direct transformation from one genus to another. In fact evolutionary theory's gradualism predicts just the opposite that these phylogonetical changes occur gradually over time and that there would be no direct transformation from genus to genus, order to order, etc but even if it did I'm sure that you would then say "Well show me an example of transformation from one phyla to another or transformation from one taxa to another. This is just an argument from ignorance in which you keep trying to raise the bar higher and higher despite the mountain of evidence being provided. It's not just ignorant it's willfully ignorant.
The real fact is, is that you only need the evidence and fact of microevolution and time to demonstrate the fact of macroevolution and I've proceeded to show you the substantial evidence for macroevolution independent of microevolution and you haven't addressed a single point I've made in a coherent scientific fashion. Weak Dixie, real weak and I'm just getting started.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
"Christian capitalization" has always annoyed the hell out of me. It's just so petty and stupid I don't know where to begin.
1. Capitalize all personal pronouns ("He" and "His," for example). This is the most basic rule of Christian capitalization. Almost every Christian knows enough to capitalize these pronouns, but some shameful people neglect it, and we are sorry to report that they may be taking their cue from their own BIBLE!
2. Capitalize other, less common pronouns. These include relative pronouns such as "Who" and "Which" as well as any other pronoun that might refer to God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Remember, if a word refers to God, it must be capitalized!
3. Capitalize titles that refer to Him, like Holy Father, Most Holy One, Bread of Life, and The Almighty. That way, people know you're talking about God, not some pagan deity.
4. Words that describe God's attributes should be capitalized. This includes His Name, His Face, His Hands, and other such descriptors, as well as His Holiness, Goodness, Justice, etc.
5. Just to be sure, capitalize words on either side of the Word God; This shows how His holiness spreads to all that surrounds Him.
6. Make sure not to capitalize proper names of the evil one. Just as Christians must show reverence for God's name, we must show disapproval and lack of respect for the devil. Don't do him the service of capitalizing the word "satan." This rule goes for hell, too.
7. When writing about Jesus Christ, you may sometimes want to capitalize all letters of HIS Name for added emphasis.
8. As a general rule, when in doubt, Capitalize! Writing about God is serious business, and it would be better to capitalize a word that does not refer to God than to miss out on blessings by not capitalizing.
You see? These people literally believe that their god would be petty enough to punish them because they didn't use improper grammar. Psychopathic! Utterly retarded! These people need to be PUT DOWN!
1. Capitalize all personal pronouns ("He" and "His," for example). This is the most basic rule of Christian capitalization. Almost every Christian knows enough to capitalize these pronouns, but some shameful people neglect it, and we are sorry to report that they may be taking their cue from their own BIBLE!
2. Capitalize other, less common pronouns. These include relative pronouns such as "Who" and "Which" as well as any other pronoun that might refer to God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Remember, if a word refers to God, it must be capitalized!
3. Capitalize titles that refer to Him, like Holy Father, Most Holy One, Bread of Life, and The Almighty. That way, people know you're talking about God, not some pagan deity.
4. Words that describe God's attributes should be capitalized. This includes His Name, His Face, His Hands, and other such descriptors, as well as His Holiness, Goodness, Justice, etc.
5. Just to be sure, capitalize words on either side of the Word God; This shows how His holiness spreads to all that surrounds Him.
6. Make sure not to capitalize proper names of the evil one. Just as Christians must show reverence for God's name, we must show disapproval and lack of respect for the devil. Don't do him the service of capitalizing the word "satan." This rule goes for hell, too.
7. When writing about Jesus Christ, you may sometimes want to capitalize all letters of HIS Name for added emphasis.
8. As a general rule, when in doubt, Capitalize! Writing about God is serious business, and it would be better to capitalize a word that does not refer to God than to miss out on blessings by not capitalizing.
You see? These people literally believe that their god would be petty enough to punish them because they didn't use improper grammar. Psychopathic! Utterly retarded! These people need to be PUT DOWN!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here is the facts. Macroevolution is not proven and not a fact. It is a theory, and one which has no scientific support or basis. You make a series of assumptions which can't be tested and can't be falsified, and that becomes your foundational basis to "prove" your theory. I'm sorry, that's not science. You can promote it as science all you like, you can throw out a bunch of big fancy scientific terms and pretend that your intelligence trumps logic or common sense, but you are espousing a completely "faith-based" premise.
We see no evidence that any genus ever "evolved" into another. NONE! The assertion that you may have found some commonality in all living things, doesn't prove or conclude a damn thing. Without the evidence that any genus has ever evolved into another, it is very difficult to believe that millions of assorted genus' in all their diverse complexity, all happened to evolve from a common ancestor. It's not only difficult to believe, it is absurd.
But.... Let's just, for the sake of argument, assume that you've nailed it... that every living thing on this planet is the result of evolution processes from an original single-cell living organism. All of the interdependent systems found in living nature, which can't survive without each other, on a planet with an environment which enables each of these independent, yet dependent, life forms to flourish and thrive, and a life cycle which is so intricately balanced, it perpetuates itself for millions of years, with very little flaw. You know.... I think that is a pretty fucking astounding roll of the proverbial dice! I just find it really hard to accept "it just so happened" that way. The point being, even IF the mythological "theory" you have presented here is valid, it still doesn't refute the very real possibility of Intelligent Design, it actually supports it even more.
To think that the raw elements found in the primordial soup, all transformed and replicated themselves into this wondrous, amazing, fascinating, and beautiful planet full of complex living things and human intelligence, you really have to be split from reality to conclude "it just happened that way" and nothing more.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dixie, you're playing whack a mole again. You've all ready set these moles up before and I've wacked them down. Sols wacked them down. Ibs has wacked them down. Thor has wacked them down, Damo has wacked them down, RS has wacked them down and on and on.
You don't know what a scientific theory is and you don't know what evolution is. You keep making claims about evolution that are arguments from ignorance. Stupid things that evolutionary theory never predicts like "I've never seen a transformation from genus to genus" well no shit Sherlock. Try doing some real reading on this topic other then Kent Hovind, ICR literature and the good ole boys at the Discovery institute.
Besides, I think I've listed more then a dozen powerful evidence for macroevolution that you haven't been able to address. I think I'll do it some more.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
More evidence for macroevolution.
Not only are their molecular homologies that are powerful arguments for macroevolution there are molecular homologies that are atavistic that are not only evidence of macroevolution but are damning evidence against ID.
Let's take our friend the Mitochondria which, for our uninitiated readers, is an organelle in the cell that converts chemical energy into mechanical energy through a process called cellular respiration (aka aerobic metabolism).
Our friend the mitochondria has it's own DNA which initiates the complex molecular sequence which results in cellular respiration. However, that DNA is not the nuclear DNA of that individual organism. The DNA in each individuals mitochondria is absolutely identical to the mitochondrial DNA of that Individuals mother (or mother cell for bacteria and other asexual simple organisms). The fact that mitochondrial DNA is always inherited from ones mother is clear evidience of common descent as this phenomena crosses taxa. Birds inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers, so do reptiles, so do mammals, so do insects, so fish, so do amphibians, so do oak trees, so do corn plants, etc, etc. This is not only clear evidence of macroevolution but it also a clear violation of design principle. Why would the mitochondrial DNA be inherited when the easiest and most affective design solution would be to transfer nuclear DNA to the mitochondria?
Not only are their molecular homologies that are powerful arguments for macroevolution there are molecular homologies that are atavistic that are not only evidence of macroevolution but are damning evidence against ID.
Let's take our friend the Mitochondria which, for our uninitiated readers, is an organelle in the cell that converts chemical energy into mechanical energy through a process called cellular respiration (aka aerobic metabolism).
Our friend the mitochondria has it's own DNA which initiates the complex molecular sequence which results in cellular respiration. However, that DNA is not the nuclear DNA of that individual organism. The DNA in each individuals mitochondria is absolutely identical to the mitochondrial DNA of that Individuals mother (or mother cell for bacteria and other asexual simple organisms). The fact that mitochondrial DNA is always inherited from ones mother is clear evidience of common descent as this phenomena crosses taxa. Birds inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers, so do reptiles, so do mammals, so do insects, so fish, so do amphibians, so do oak trees, so do corn plants, etc, etc. This is not only clear evidence of macroevolution but it also a clear violation of design principle. Why would the mitochondrial DNA be inherited when the easiest and most affective design solution would be to transfer nuclear DNA to the mitochondria?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
BTW, this is also clear evidence to that Eve preceded Adam. LOL
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well I do know what a scientific theory is, as well as evolution. I did have to study this when I got my masters in psychology. The theory you are suggesting, does indeed require one genus to evolve into another, unless of course, the original single cell organisms just magically knew what to evolve into! If that's what you think happened, it is even MORE incredible! We have zero scientific evidence that a single-cell organism can determine whether it needs to turn into a plant or animal. Just like we have no evidence that one genus can turn into another. Now, simple logic dictates, if these two things are not possible, there is no way to go from a single cell to billions of life forms. You keep pointing to macroevolution, but that theory is, that everything evolved from a single cell. That's fine to have as a theory, but it has no scientific basis and hasn't ever been proven. In fact, it is less plausible than the theory of intelligent design. At least with ID we see evidence of design by intelligent forces, with macroevolution, it defies logic and fact.
Now Mott, you can rant on and on about playing wack-a-mole here, but you aren't supporting your argument with tangible evidence, you're just running your mouth. If you think insulting me and ridiculing me is going to win this debate, you're sadly mistaken. I really don't care how many other posters want to take your "faith-based" side in the argument, or who calls me names. You've still not proven your theory, you've just spouted off a bunch of nonsense, and claimed it is fact. It's not.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dixie you're own posting have condemned you as not knowing what either is. You're not only making claims about evolutionary thoery that biologist do not make and predictions that the theory doesn't predict, you're showing you don't know what taxonomy is either nor does it hide the fact that you've failed to address a single point of evidence that I've sited.....and there's lots more where that come from.
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Synthesis
Evaluation
Application
Analysis
Comprehension
Knowledge
Bloom's Taxonomy, bitches!!!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I know that biologist don't claim one genus has ever transformed to another, because as far as we know, that has never happened. Now, I live in Alabama, and I can come here and post that I am now in California and that's a fact... but unless I flew, drove, walked, or rode, there is no logical explanation for how I got to California, and it really doesn't matter how much I say it. You have theorized that billions of different forms of life have emerged from a single cell, through a process of evolution, yet there is no evidence that anything has ever changed what it fundamentally is, and became something else. You jump on that point by saying, you never claimed that... but that IS what you are claiming! There is no other logical way to get from point A to point B!
I know a fucking lot more than you give me credit for dude, and the more you revert to focusing on personal insulting, rather than backing up your idiotic arguments, the more it is apparent, you have no answers. You are not proving anything with science, especially when all you have to offer is another slap at my intellect, or personal insult directed at me.
I have addressed your presentation. Unless you can show where a genus has emerged from another different genus, you can not prove macroevolution. All the billions of forms of life on Earth are not of the same genus, that is fairly obvious. So, how do you get from point A (single cell) to point B (billions of genus') without a logical explanation? You have claimed, through macroevolution, yet you insist, macroevolution and science have not predicted a genus ever transformed to another. So.... I'm in California, yesterday I was in Alabama, and I didn't drive, fly, walk or ride!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
What an asinine proposition. It's not only utterly false it's just a game of raise the bar. First you say there's no evidence of transitional species, when that evidence has been presented to you you lamely state "There's never been a transformation from genus to genus and thus evolution cannot be a fact." How copletely rediculous. You've just completely ignored the compelling evidence I've listed for macroevolution to make an illogical and irrational argument that just simply doesn't hold water. Even if I could produce evidence of transformation from genus to genus (which no one can) you would then ask me to provide evidence of transformation from family to family or order to order and go right on playing taxanomical "raise the bar". It's a completely bogus argument dude.
First let's be clear what we are talking about. In taxonomy for a genus to transform into another genus you are talking about an entire group of species transforming into an entirely new group of species. For example, that would mean all the canines of the world, dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, etc suddenly transforming, not just some but ALL OF THEM, into a completely new group of species such as felines (cats, lions, tigers, lynx, leapords, etc.). You are correct this has never been observed, and this is where your argument is just sooooooo lame. This does not happen because evolutionary theory predicts that this would and could not happen. Not even by such rapid evolutionary mechanisms as punctuated equilibrium. In fact, the gradualistic mechanism of evolution predict that change would occur at the population level (species and subspecies) not the genus level and that is what in fact does occur. So your argument that transformation from genus to genus has never been observed is evidence against macroevolution is completely erroneous because it is in fact evidence for evolution. It shows to me that you don't really understand the concept of biological taxonomy (as well as evolution and a scientific theory).
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dixie I also need to go back to basics to demonstrate my point on the fallacy of your argument.
The modern definition of evolutionary theory is "The change in allele (a genetic expresion) frequency within a species/subspeices (the term population is often used as a synonym for species and/or sub species) over time.
(note - a subspecies is what lay person would call "a breed". For example. A dog is the species canine familiarous. But it might be of the subspecies known as "labrador retriever" or "German Shepard").
Thus evolutionary theory predicts that the mechanisms of evolutionary change work at the species and subspecies level. Not at higher taxonomical levels. Evolutionary theory does not predict direct evolutionary transformations at the genus level of taxonomy to another. In fact, this is one of the methods by which one can falisfy, in principle, evolutionary theory. If you can show me evidence of transformation of one genus of species to another genus of species then you would have succesfully falsified evolutionary theory. As you have correctly stated, this has never been observed.
So you have actuallly provided more evidence for macroevolution with your observation that transformations from one genus to another has never been observed.
The modern definition of evolutionary theory is "The change in allele (a genetic expresion) frequency within a species/subspeices (the term population is often used as a synonym for species and/or sub species) over time.
(note - a subspecies is what lay person would call "a breed". For example. A dog is the species canine familiarous. But it might be of the subspecies known as "labrador retriever" or "German Shepard").
Thus evolutionary theory predicts that the mechanisms of evolutionary change work at the species and subspecies level. Not at higher taxonomical levels. Evolutionary theory does not predict direct evolutionary transformations at the genus level of taxonomy to another. In fact, this is one of the methods by which one can falisfy, in principle, evolutionary theory. If you can show me evidence of transformation of one genus of species to another genus of species then you would have succesfully falsified evolutionary theory. As you have correctly stated, this has never been observed.
So you have actuallly provided more evidence for macroevolution with your observation that transformations from one genus to another has never been observed.
Last edited: