Originally posted by JirakonLucy was mostly a knuckle-walker, though it did walk upright some of the time. So does the Bonobo. There's nothing in Lucy to suggest a closer resemblance to a human than a lower primate.
Lucy was mostly a knuckle-walker, though it did walk upright some of the time. So does the Bonobo. There's nothing in Lucy to suggest a closer resemblance to a human than a lower primate.
How about heavy metal tolerance in grasses growing under power cables, or near old wells?
You'll have to fill me in on this one. I can't find any sources onlin ...[text shortened]... I said earlier, if there are any mutations that increase the genome, I am not aware of them.
Australopithicines feet and dentition are also notably human like.
How about heavy metal tolerance in grasses growing under power cables, or near old wells?
Wells? Where did that come from? I said mines.
But anyway, here's a link to a published paper
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2556727
Or this one
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2433013
Originally posted by JirakonLaw of Causality: Every effect must have a cause. If the universe came into existence, there must have been a cause. What could possibly cause the universe to come into existence except something that transcends it?
Reproduction's easy. RNA can catalyze it's own reproduction, and phospholipid vesicles can break in two.
Reproduction can hardly be considered easy. In the case of RNA, it would have to form and learn to reproduce in the same generation. It would have to arise naturally as complete RNA, already able to catlyze its reproduction. A single RNA strand, ...[text shortened]... e amount and quality of the actual fossils used in their reconstruction.
I’ll let those who know far more than I address all the science issues. This statement, however (well, I did notice the question-mark 🙂 ), is flawed on several grounds:
(1) The “universe” is not a thing (an effect) itself, like a jar containing bugs. It is simply all of the bugs and their relationships. You cannot take away everything that is “in” the universe, and then speak of the “remaining” universe-itself.
A thoroughly “internal” explanation of all the “content” (including causal complexes) could be a full and complete explanation. (Whether or not such an explanation can actually be found, it is not logically banned.) Simply, if one were able to identify all the causal connections within the universe, there would be no causal connection left that needed to be identified. Once you have explained how every individual came to have their place in the “group”, it makes no sense to then ask, “Yes, but how did the ‘group’ itself come to be as it is?”
(2) Those who posit an “external” cause generally also ascribe to that the characteristic of itself being causa sui, in order to truncate by fiat an infinite regression (e.g., a god that caused the god that caused the god that caused everything else...). There is no logical need to assume that the cosmos is not self-caused, by some mysterious mechanism beyond our ken—just as it is beyond our ken how any “transcendent” causal agent could be causa sui.
(3) Causality is itself an aspect of the natural cosmos. If someone wants to posit some being beyond the natural cosmos, then one can ask why (and what kind of) causality should be ascribed to such a being? How does such causality differ from natural-order causality? How does such an extra-natural causality produce an effect? Etc., etc.
(4) At the quantum level, at least, natural causality, as we normally understand it, seems to come into question. As I understand it (and I am quite willing to be corrected by someone who knows the science), there seem to be uncaused (at least by any mechanism now known) quantum events. This in itself ought to give proponents of the cosmological argument cause for pause... (Again, I’ll happily stand corrected on this one.)
In a sense, those who posit a transcendent causal agent—that itself is causa sui—face a “singularity” similar to that faced by cosmologists: a point beyond which what we are able to identify as the natural rules seem to break down, and nothing further can (on present knowledge) be said, except in the way of pure speculation.
Originally posted by JirakonYes it is more of the same if by 'same' you mean 'DNA'. If you are referring to the information content then no, both copying and other types of change result in new information. New information = addition.
Copy + change (of either deletion or swapping) = more of the same =/= addition.
If you still cant see the obvious, think about the way language evolves. New words are introduced in various ways:
1. Straight forward invention.
2. Change of use - this is probably the most common.
3. Change of pronunciation or spelling.
4. Combination / truncation.
But the fact is that even without 1. new words are introduced to language all the time. For example: yo, hood, pwned, bro are all truncated or changed words yet they still constitute additions to the English language.
Virus don't add anything that isn't already in either the virus or the thing it inhabits. If all life came from a single cell, how could any life add any new structures that didn't previously exist?
We are not talking about new structures we are talking about new information in the DNA. A virus can - and does - introduce DNA from one organism to another, so for a given organism it does constitute addition. The main processes that result new information in DNA are copying / mutations / and reordering. Using a mere 26 letters of the alphabet and a few punctuation marks I can create all the English works of literature by merely copying and reordering.
Now think about what I have said seriously then tell us whether you now accept that addition to DNA is possible.
Wells? Where did that come from? I said mines.
I simply copied and pasted from your post. You can see for yourself that you typed "wells".
They have genes which don't exist in the general population. How do you suppose they got there?
Even after reading the articles, it makes more sense to me that the mutation is one of deletion. I think creation better explains how they got there, while natural selection explains how they were deleted from the general populace. In fact, it doesn't even have to be deleted. Perhaps it just became dormant until the presence of heavy metal caused it to be expressed again in later generations. But I don't think they never existed. The fact that some grass expressed genes that most of the grass didn't express does not mean that the gene was never in their genome before.
Both of the statements made about australopithecus being humanlike are no longer accepted. The bones show that it was only walking on two limbs for some of the time. It is already generally acknowledged that australopithecus is pure ape.
If you are referring to the information content then no, both copying and other types of change result in new information. New information = addition
I'm not simply referring to "information", as that is a term which isn't very well-defined. I'll try to clarify furthur. To get from bacteria to blue whale, a lot of genomes have to be added. This does not arise from recombination, deletion, or copying. Those all change the already existing genome. For a new genotype to occur, the organism must be exposed to something that wasn't already there, not simply have its components change. Unless all viruses that added these new components formed by chance as the first cell allegedly did, these new components cannot arise naturally by mutations.
Your illustrations about language are also flawed. Straight-forward invention would be creation. The other three all just mess with what's already there. New words may be introduced, but they do not change the nature of the language, nor its alphabet.
You can use 26 letters and punctuation marks to create different works of English literature, but you cannot use 5 letters to create works those works. The differences between bacteria and blue whales are much more complex than the differences between one work of English literature and another. The vast amount of genomes in blue whales as opposed to those in bacteria is like 26 letters of the alphabet compared to 5. If you want to make "blue whale" literature when all you have is a "bacteria" alphabet, the only way to add letters is by straightforward addition.
It is also generally acknowledged that you and I are too.
I really don't know if you're genuinely misunderstanding or if you're just doing this on purpose. But I will spell out what I meant regardless:
It is generally acknowledged that any traits shared by australopithecus and modern humans are shared only to the extent that modern lower primates share the same similarities. Therefore, australopithecus is classified as a lower primate, not as anything human-like (except, again, for those traits which are shared by modern lower primates).
Originally posted by Jirakon"Lower" has no biological meaning.
It is also generally acknowledged that you and I are too.
I really don't know if you're genuinely misunderstanding or if you're just doing this on purpose. But I will spell out what I meant regardless:
It is generally acknowledged that any traits shared by australopithecus and modern humans are shared only to the extent that modern lower ...[text shortened]... thing human-like (except, again, for those traits which are shared by modern lower primates).
Originally posted by JirakonI simply copied and pasted from your post. You can see for yourself that you typed "wells".
Wells? Where did that come from? I said mines.
I simply copied and pasted from your post. You can see for yourself that you typed "wells".
They have genes which don't exist in the general population. How do you suppose they got there?
Even after reading the articles, it makes more sense to me that the mutation is one of deletion. I thi ...[text shortened]... some of the time. It is already generally acknowledged that australopithecus is pure ape.
I apologise. I mean mines. Can't think why I wrote wells.
Even after reading the articles, it makes more sense to me that the mutation is one of deletion.
So you think that 99.99% of the population suffered a gene deletion, and 0.01% retained it? What evidence do you have for this?
I think creation better explains how they got there
"Goddunit". There, perfect.
Both of the statements made about australopithecus being humanlike are no longer accepted.
Only in the creationist literature, buddy.
Originally posted by JirakonYou'll have to do better than that. Why must it be exposed to something that wasn't already there?
I'm not simply referring to "information", as that is a term which isn't very well-defined. I'll try to clarify furthur. To get from bacteria to blue whale, a lot of genomes have to be added. This does not arise from recombination, deletion, or copying. Those all change the already existing genome. For a new genotype to occur, the organism must be exposed to something that wasn't already there, not simply have its components change.
Your illustrations about language are also flawed. Straight-forward invention would be creation. The other three all just mess with what's already there. New words may be introduced, but they do not change the nature of the language, nor its alphabet.
You can use 26 letters and punctuation marks to create different works of English literature, but you cannot use 5 letters to create works those works.
In case you did not know, DNA has only 4 letters:
Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. So all the 'works of life' can in fact be created from a mere 4 letters.
The differences between bacteria and blue whales are much more complex than the differences between one work of English literature and another. The vast amount of genomes in blue whales as opposed to those in bacteria is like 26 letters of the alphabet compared to 5. If you want to make "blue whale" literature when all you have is a "bacteria" alphabet, the only way to add letters is by straightforward addition.
Show some reasoning to back up that conclusion. Outright claims that is 'cannot be done' just don't cut it.
Both blue whales and bacteria have DNA made from only four letters. The bacteria DNA can therefore be copied, and pasted until it matches blue whale DNA exactly. That is a mathematically provable fact. Post the DNA of a bacteria and one of a blue whale and I will give you the exact copy/paste transformation needed.
What is amazing is that you talk about DNA, genomes and mutation like you know what they are, yet you clearly have no idea. So I will ask you again - where did you learn about them? What are you basing your information on? I am curious to know which course / book / website has information on DNA, genomes and mutation but omits the well known fact that new DNA / genomes can arise in nature via mutation.
Originally posted by JirakonPlease explain what you mean by 'generally acknowledged'.
It is generally acknowledged that any traits shared by australopithecus and modern humans are shared only to the extent that modern lower primates share the same similarities. Therefore, australopithecus is classified as a lower primate, not as anything human-like (except, again, for those traits which are shared by modern lower primates).
And when you say it is 'classified' what do you mean?
When I look up australopithecus on Wikkipedia I find that according to that site australopithecus is classified as
Family Hominidae. (This includes Gorillas, Chimps and Humans)
Tribe: Hominini (This includes Chimps and Humans but not Gorillas)
Subtribe: Hominina (This includes Humans but not Chimps).
So according to Wikkipedia, you are wrong, so which source are you using?
Originally posted by JirakonSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
To get from bacteria to blue whale, a lot of genomes have to be added. This does not arise from recombination, deletion, or copying. Those all change the already existing genome. For a new genotype to occur, the organism must be exposed to something that wasn't already there, not simply have its components change. Unless all viruses that added these new comp ...[text shortened]... ance as the first cell allegedly did, these new components cannot arise naturally by mutations.
A widely held theory seems to be that new traits arise through duplication of preexisting genes, the copies of which then diverge through subsequent mutations.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2040452 has some more stuff.
Like every other organism each individual whale has only one genome. You don't even understand this word!
Excuse me. I meant to say genotypes.
This argument is not leading anywhere. It doesn't seem as though either side can convince the other, as we're not just disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts, but on the facts themselves. As such is the case, I think it's best if I humbly and respectfully bow out of this argument.
I believe in God and creation based mainly on personal experience (as well as those of my family and close friends). All the evidence I've presented is simply corroborative in my view. I realize I can't convince you to believe in God or creation; only the Holy Spirit can do that. You may not like this, but I'll be praying the He does just that for all of you.
~~~