mighty_duck
New member
I think SUTG was too..Ohnos said:I think Jukia was being sarcastic
Cell Trends
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
thats not my game .. my game is much simpler. let me spell it out yet again.Johnny said:
i understand we probably dont have E.Coli as an ancestor .. but according to evolutionary theory .. we do have an ancestor that was once of a similar size ... now to get to where we are today there is a direct line of descent from a single cell organism .. to a multi cell organism .. to a micro-bug .. to plankton .. through a few fish types .. in and out of water ... growing hair limbs and forming knee joints .. no wings thanks but i'll have eyes and a tongue ... and finally a playstation 3.
now this process from molecule to man involves mutations that are propogated throughout the population by natural selection .. how many mutations are there in this sequence of made up events? divide that number by the made up number for the age of life on earth (4b) and we get a number that is the average mutations per year to get from bug to german.
your stories about lots of coliflower are interesting.. but are rather different to what im talking about.
Duke Biologists Deny Validity of Molecular Classification 07/02/2001
Scientists at Duke University claim to have debunked the method of classifying mammals and other organisms based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. The molecular method claims the platypus is related to the kangaroo, for instance, and that widely disparate animals like hippos and whales had a common ancestor. The Duke scientists analyzed nuclear genes with computer software that supported the older common-sense classification used by paleontologists that groups animals based on morphology (outward structure and anatomical similarities). The article starts by saying, “Classifying kangaroos and platypuses together on the evolutionary family tree is as absurd as adding your neighbors to your own family ancestral line simply because they share your love of the opera, according to scientists at Duke University.”
This article is loaded with circular reasoning. Both sides of this ongoing controversy assume evolution to prove evolutionary relationships and just argue over which method produces a better fit to their preconceived notions of the family tree. It is like arguing over which classification method does better at proving hammers and screwdrivers had a common ancestor: metal content or shape.
Scientists at Duke University claim to have debunked the method of classifying mammals and other organisms based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. The molecular method claims the platypus is related to the kangaroo, for instance, and that widely disparate animals like hippos and whales had a common ancestor. The Duke scientists analyzed nuclear genes with computer software that supported the older common-sense classification used by paleontologists that groups animals based on morphology (outward structure and anatomical similarities). The article starts by saying, “Classifying kangaroos and platypuses together on the evolutionary family tree is as absurd as adding your neighbors to your own family ancestral line simply because they share your love of the opera, according to scientists at Duke University.”
This article is loaded with circular reasoning. Both sides of this ongoing controversy assume evolution to prove evolutionary relationships and just argue over which method produces a better fit to their preconceived notions of the family tree. It is like arguing over which classification method does better at proving hammers and screwdrivers had a common ancestor: metal content or shape.
excellent .. ive always wondered why there arent large correlated timelines provided by different evolutionary theories. it should be childs play for the evolutionary trees to match the DNA links and for the stratigraphical features to correlate morphologically and geologically ... you never see timelines compared to one another though .. .theyre always changing and updating and intensifying ... never compared though.bob b said:
SUTG
New member
stipe said:
Well, this wasn't exactly how evolutionary theory puts it, but OK.
Whoa, the quote above was not molecules to man, it was from life to life, from single celled organism to homo sapiens. A single celled organism is more than a molecule, and the book "The Origin of Species" sought to explain the diversity of types of life (species) - hence the title.
The origins of life itself are another topic. Don't confuse the two, and learn to recognize when others are confusing the two.
Can't be determined. How could we, and why would we want to?
Uh, that 4 billion is not a made up number, it has evidence to support it. The six days in the Bible is an example of a made up number.
What are you trying to show by coming up with this equation?
Last edited:
wheee .. i made a joke that got understood!SUTG said:
i prefer my sciences self explanatory and cross referential ... but ok .. from single cell life to man ...SUTG said:
youd have to make some assumptions obviously .. my point is going to be (after someone has the guts to stick some numbers into teh equation) that either the rate is so high that the process should be directly observable .. or the total mutations is too low and could never account for human kind.SUTG said:
im sure that with those two boundaries evolutionary scientists should be able to come up with a set of numbers that fit somewhere in the middle to demonstrate that it is still possible without actually being observable.
but in the meantime .. its fun watching you lot squirm ... *GRIN*
i dont know the numbers ... quite clearly nobody ever will ... ive made several wild guesses .. but nobody seems very eager to provide anything theyd feel comfortable with ...SUTG said:
i realise that as a rabid creationist anything i say that sounds vaguely scientific will be ridiculed by the opposition .. so i thought id attempt something like long division and see how long it took for them to realise that all i was doing was standard 3 maths....
perhaps you lot want to find an addition equation that challenges creation ...
aharvey
New member
I like our discussions, but your ESL issues make many of your posts hard to understand, I'm afraid. What do you mean by "large correlated timelines provided by different evolutionary theories"? What do you mean by 'evolutionary trees matching DNA links'? What do you mean by 'stratigraphical features correlating geologically'?stipe said:
As far as mapping phylogenetic trees onto stratigraphy (or vice versa), I can't speak for the popular literature, but it is an unremarkable component of the scientific literature itself. Have you ever wondered why creationist sites don't trumpet examples of stratigraphic-phylogenetic mismatches?
SUTG
New member
stipe said:
I haven't seen you say anything that sounds vaguely scientific yet.
Not sure what Standard 3 maths is, since I live in the States. I don't know of any equations that challenge creation, but do know of some logical arguments that challenge it.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but i'm not sure what bob's topic is anymore. In the OP, he claims he is going to offer evidence that the "apparent complexity and sophistication of cellular mechanisms is growing with time and additional research." This is a pretty uncontroversial statement that few will challenge. But later on, he starts sneaking in wild claims about "Irreducible Complexity" and other obsolete ideas.
esl? english as a second language? i teach that .. im not a student of it ...aharvey said:
"large correlated timelines provided by different evolutionary theories" .. why dont we see timelines with dna evidence down one side and morphological evidence down the other .. and the picture in the middle matches both ...
or when looking at geological formations ... the radiometric age down one side against the deposition environment on the other ...
something like that ..
Frankenstein Bacteria Jumpstart Evolution With Lightning 08/01/2001
According to Nature Science Update, researchers in France simulated lightning in soil with spark discharges and observed bacteria incorporating plasmids (DNA rings) into their genomes. They conjecture that this method of horizontal gene transfer might be instrumental in evolution.
Shocking, but true? Let’s try an experiment. Stick your finger in an electrical outlet and see if you evolve upward or downward. Caution! Do not try this at home!
Quotable Quote 08/02/01: “The simplest living cell is so complex that supercomputer models may never simulate its behavior perfectly. But even imperfect models could shake the foundations of biology.” – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Cybernetic Cells,” Scientific American (August 2001), p. 53.
According to Nature Science Update, researchers in France simulated lightning in soil with spark discharges and observed bacteria incorporating plasmids (DNA rings) into their genomes. They conjecture that this method of horizontal gene transfer might be instrumental in evolution.
Shocking, but true? Let’s try an experiment. Stick your finger in an electrical outlet and see if you evolve upward or downward. Caution! Do not try this at home!
Quotable Quote 08/02/01: “The simplest living cell is so complex that supercomputer models may never simulate its behavior perfectly. But even imperfect models could shake the foundations of biology.” – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Cybernetic Cells,” Scientific American (August 2001), p. 53.