Greg Jennings
New member
Then find me a scientist who agrees with you. Put up or shut up time
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Then find me a scientist who agrees with you. Put up or shut up time
Greg Jennings
New member
Yep. Science, particularly at the microscopic scale, defies physics as we are used to them.
For example: some small molecules can sometimes go straight through a solid barrier. Other times they act normally. It's a vast and largely incomprehensible world even still
Even if they are, the evidence is that transport kinesins evolved from simpler motor kinesins.
Exp Cell Res. 2015 May 15; 334(1): 61–69.
Mitosis, Microtubule Dynamics and the Evolution of Kinesins
Juan Jesus Vicente and Linda Wordeman
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433793/
Jose Fly
New member
Funny....after all this time you still don't understand the basics of science.
?????? Who said I want anything to be any certain way? It's quite simple...if we both agree that non-functional sequences can exist, then obviously a mutation to those sequences that doesn't cause them to start functioning will be a neutral mutation. But apparently you didn't think that through.
Um....what? I recommend you actually read the paper.
Patterns of kinesin evolution reveal a complex ancestral eukaryote with a multifunctional cytoskeleton
Bill WicksteadEmail author, Keith Gull and Thomas A Richards
BMC Evolutionary Biology 201010:110
Abstract
Background
The genesis of the eukaryotes was a pivotal event in evolution and was accompanied by the acquisition of numerous new cellular features including compartmentalization by cytoplasmic organelles, mitosis and meiosis, and ciliary motility. Essential for the development of these features was the tubulin cytoskeleton and associated motors. It is therefore possible to map ancient cell evolution by reconstructing the evolutionary history of motor proteins. Here, we have used the kinesin motor repertoire of 45 extant eukaryotes to infer the ancestral state of this superfamily in the last common eukaryotic ancestor (LCEA).
Results
We bioinformatically identified 1624 putative kinesin proteins, determined their protein domain architectures and calculated a comprehensive Bayesian phylogeny for the kinesin superfamily with statistical support. These data enabled us to define 51 anciently-derived kinesin paralogs (including three new kinesin families) and 105 domain architectures. We then mapped these characters across eukaryotes, accounting for secondary loss within established eukaryotic groupings, and alternative tree topologies.
Conclusions
We show that a minimum of 11 kinesin families and 3 protein domain architectures were present in the LCEA. This demonstrates that the microtubule-based cytoskeleton of the LCEA was surprisingly highly developed in terms of kinesin motor types, but that domain architectures have been extensively modified during the diversification of the eukaryotes. Our analysis provides molecular evidence for the existence of several key cellular functions in the LCEA, and shows that a large proportion of motor family diversity and cellular complexity had already arisen in this ancient cell.
Why lie about something so easy to refute?
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 14;6:32700. doi: 10.1038/srep32700.
An APOC3 3'UTR variant associated with plasma triglycerides levels and coronary heart disease by creating a functional miR-4271 binding site.
Hu SL1, Cui GL1, Huang J1, Jiang JG1, Wang DW1.
Abstract
Apolipoprotein C-III (APOC3) is a key regulator of plasma triglycerides levels. Increasing evidence has shown that loss-of-function mutations in APOC3 is associated with reduction in plasma triglycerides levels and will confer a benefit in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease. However, these favorable mutations were extremely distribution discrepant among different ethnics.
"Harmful", "neutral", and "favorable" only have meaning in terms of environment. So the mutation that allows Tibetans to survive at very high altitudes will be favorable on the Tibetan plateau, but will be neutral or possibly even slightly harmful at lower altitudes. "Neutral" mutations are then neutral only with regard to the environment in which they happen to exist.
If I balance a long stick on a narrow board, it is never perfectly balanced. It almost certainly has more mass on one side than the other. But not enough so as to make a difference. Suppose we say a tip to the right would be favorable. Since it won't tip, we call it neutral, but it's not exactly so. It could have a bit more on the right (very slightly favorable) or a bit more on the left (very slightly unfavorable)
As the paper above demonstrates, your claim is false. You know it's false. Please try to argue honestly in the future.
I think we actually got somewhere this time. Maybe we can talk about the way molecular biology has evolved.
If anyone wonders why I don't regularly debate evolution, the above post is an excellent example of why.
It really is as if evolutionists just do not understand the point. What point, you ask? ANY point! It doesn't seem to matter what argument is presented, they just do not get it!
I used to think it was an act, that they did get the point of whatever argument had been presented and that responses like the one above was some sort of tactic designed to obfuscate and confuse the audience and/or their opponent. I don't think that any more. I think that, if The Barbarian is reading this, that up until I explain it, he won't have a clue what the hell I'm talking about. As he reads this sentence, he'll be confused and almost dumbfounded at what I've said up to this point and unless I spell it out, he won't have any idea what I'm getting at.
But don't think I'm intending to pick on him specifically. It's something wrong with the way evolutionists think, because they all seem to do it. Seemingly every debate I've ever seen about evolution has some point in it where the evolutionists does this sort of thing where they respond to something as if the debate is about some specific detail when its really about something much bigger and more general and where they think that if they move the discussion to even the slightest different detail, that they've avoided being damaged by the argument against them. And I mean that precisely. They think that they can avoid being crushed to powder if all they do is take the focus off of one detail and move it to another. It's gotta be some sort of mental disorder (not really - it just feels that way).
Barbarian, the argument isn't about any specific motor protein nor is it really about motor proteins at all.
Just watch the video! I know you already have, but watch it again and then go find similar ones on YouTube and watch those. I know that its not really possible for you to do this but try to watch them from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in evolution and try to keep track of how many things someone from that perspective could use in an argument identical to the one made by me in this thread. I didn't have to pick legs. I didn't have to focus on motor proteins. I could have picked any of a dozen or more different molecular machines and organizational structures in just that short 9 minute video.
I picked legs to focus on for two reasons. First of all, because legs are an easy to understand idea. I don't have to explain to anyone what legs are or what they're for. Secondly, it was an item near the end of the video and I wanted to make sure that people saw most if not all of the video. It wasn't because legs are super complex and require precision, clock work like intricacies to work. Quite the contrary, in fact. And yet here you show up with the equivalent of "legs evolved from simpler legs"! Can you not see how that doesn't address the issue at all? Do you think that the gears and springs in a watch evolved from simpler gears and springs?
I mean, first of all, even the most complex kinesin molecule isn't that complex to begin with but even if it were, it doesn't matter! Take the simplest form of motor protien (Kinesin or otherwise) that you want to look at and it does exactly the same amount of damage to the theory of evolution as the ones depicted in the video I presented. Your worldview is still blown to bits. All you're doing is rejecting dynamite in favor of TNT with which to do the demolition. And if you don't like TNT then pick C4, which in this context might be the microtubuals inside the cell or the little proteins that the DNA molecule is wrapped around to make a chromosome or the chromosome itself or maybe that little machine that takes apart and then copies DNA or any number of a thousand different things in every single cell that must not only exist but function properly and contribute to the replication of itself or else the whole organism dies.
Clete
Last edited:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Once again Clete trots out the same nonsense. A simpler way of saying the same as above using far fewer words...
Evolution is too complex for me to understand therefore evolution does not happen.
Clete
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with whether I can understand it. In fact, while I am by no means an expert, I understand it just fine, at least on a conceptual level and there are others who understand it extremely well. Both my level of understanding and theirs are both entirely irrelevant!
The point isn't about our understanding, it's about the complexity of the system, even at it's simplest conceivable level. It cannot have happened by some mindless, undirected, random, accidental process.
To make an analogy, if you tossed a bunch of letters in a box and attempted to produce a sentence with them via the same sort of undirected, accidental processes, you'd NEVER succeed. I don't care how long you tried it or how many times, you'd never ever produce even one single intelligible sentence. Evolution wants us to believe that not only can such processes produce a sentence, but several compound sentences and books and even multiple volumes of books (The human genome has at least 1.5 Gigabytes of data which is the equivalent of about 5000 average books).
But wait - it not books that they think happen by accident! Oh no! That would be too easy! What they want us to believe happened by accident is the existence of complex machines that not only work and repair themselves but that actually SELF-REPLICATE!!!! That isn't just a little difficult to understand. There isn't hardly anything that you could name or even conceive of that would be more complex than that, whether you understood it or not!
And these are the people who reject the notion of miracles!
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
So, what you're REALLY saying, despite your straw man "analogy" (evolution, while mindless and undirected, is far from entirely random and accidental), is that you THINK evolution is too complex to happen naturally and that only a miracle explains it. To state your objection more simply...
Evolution isn't just a little difficult to understand. There isn't hardly anything that I could name or even conceive of that would be more complex. Evolution is far too complex for me to understand therefore evolution does not happen.
Clete
Jose Fly
New member
Exactly. Every once in a while I get asked why I bother with creationists. Clete's "response" to the info Barbarian posted is a great example of why I keep coming back. It's a fascination with the sort of mentality that says "Oh yeah? Well then how did this evolve mister scientist?" But when the question is answered, rather than admit it, they come up with the most bizarre responses imaginable.
Just from a human behavioral standpoint, it's fascinating to watch.
No!
See what I mean, folks?! This HAS TO BE some sort of mental disorder!
IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT!
That sentence has 13 words and 18 syllables. Counting the exclamation point, it has 49 letters/character (61 if you count the spaces - which actually do convey meaning). And that's just the written version. The audible version of that sentence which the letters and words represent and somewhat more complex than that.
Using the same sort of processes that evolutionists claim created you and me, you could not ever produce that sentence.
Now, I wrote that sentence. I can totally understand it! It isn't hard to understand whatsoever and yet without a mind to write it, that sentence never happens - ever - period.
But you believe that things far beyond the complexity of that sentence happen "naturally", to use your word. In fact you believe that wildly complex machines that can replicate themselves just happened by mindless happenstance.
Clete
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Oh, I agree completely.
While I don't often reply to the creationist's nonsense (it's a game of whack-a-mole) I do like to read their insane posts for the entertainment value.
Creationism/Creationists is/are stupid on steroids.
There has been no answer. Just is just the exact point and yet another example of why I have found it almost universally fruitless to debate evolution except on the broadest conceptual level. I'm not kidding, it really seems like evolution has caused some sort of malfunction to occur in the evolutionist's mind.
The entire point here is that not only has there been no answer, there can be no answer. There is no answer. Even the answers to my original question, which I accepted as a means to an end, don't really answer anything. Legs from fins is just another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. A fish's fin is just a different sort of leg. It's just the sort of leg you'd need to move around in water. It's really just answering the question with the answer, "Legs evolved from other sorts of legs." which isn't an answer at all but it's all the evolutionist has got! I mean that is literally all that they've got! What else could they have? Nothing! There isn't anything else for them to ever have because evolution didn't happen (i.e. reality is what it is)! It's a contrivance that evolutionists see purely as a result of two things. They're hated of God and confirmation bias.
Clete
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
See what I mean folks?! This HAS TO BE some sort of mental disorder!
No matter how many times the various creationist straw men are corrected, evolution, while mindless and undirected, is far from entirely random and accidental.
In one sentence Clete says, "It has nothing to do with whether I can understand it... I understand it just fine", then almost instantaneously follows up with, "That (evolution) isn't just a little difficult to understand", and (I'm paraphrasing) "It is IMPOSSIBLE (for me) to understand".
You can only find this much stupid-on-steroids at TOL.
This idiotic distinction is PRECISELY the reason I've worded the argument the way I have!
"Using the same sort of processes that evolutionists claim created you and me, you could not ever produce that sentence."
The post is still there for everyone to read, moron. Your paraphrase is the only stupidity happening here.
Clete
Jose Fly
New member
I liken it to those scenes from old western movies, where one guy shoots bullets at another guy's feet and everyone laughs as he dances helplessly. Only in this case, we're all getting a kick out of watching creationists dance and dodge data and evidence.