|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 1:17:18 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose it would have to be considering the fact that such is the history of our world per the Bible. But I'm still curious as to why it would have happened, which is the realm of the ecologist and perhaps the metageneticist. "Why it would have happened" sounds like a theological question to me... 
Why would life have arisen from non-life, according to the religious tenets of uniformitarian naturalism?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 1:58:27 PM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Perhaps I could ask an ecologist whether or not that's a feasible scenario, but I see no reason why that couldn't happen within a few hundred years. It's more than feasible for scores of dog breeds to "evolve" over a few hundred years in Europe! The ecological diversity present after the Flood would have been more than adequate to stimulate the front-loaded genomes of Hand-picked individual baramin to diversify into numerous "species" within a relatively short time frame.
Dogs are all the same species drmark.
A Great Dane can have a live fertile pup with a Yorkshire Terrier.
But not with a fox.
Show me how dogs, wolves, foxes, and all the other 35 species of the canine baramin all split into those 35 different species in only 4000 years (evolution on steroids?).
And then suddenly stopped splitting and remained the same separate species some time before we started studying them ove the last several hundred years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 5:06:47 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hardly. I don't actually use words like "macroevolution" or "microevolution" because the definitions are too cloudy to be of any real use.
I suppose that's just in creationist circles. Science has a very clear definition of "macroevolution."
And yes, what you described is a perfect example of macroevolution. 
quote:
That's the popular theory, and it seems reasonable as long as we're using stick figures on a powerpoint slide, but it's never been demonstrated in a lab to even be feasible
Are you kidding? Gene duplication with mutation is the very definition of novel genetic material.
Go to PubMed.gov and type in "Gene Duplication." Feel free to pick one of the 3,000 articles that disagree with you. Lol.
Furthermore, we've directly observed mutations that create new features.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/26/2010 7:29:03 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mutations can cause new features in the same way that a hammer can cause a new feature in a window.
Uh... No. Haha.
Mutations sometimes add information to a genome. Sometimes they subtract it. Novel genetic material, and novel genetically regulated abilities have been observed.
quote:
We see these kinds of mutations all the time, and sometimes they're beneficial, but this is not the kind of mechanisms that is going to produce new and novel structures.
Variation and mutation create new structures and genetic information all the time. It's actually funny you might suggest that variation and novel information can't arise, seeing as a flood killing all but two of each species would essentially doom all species by nearly all variation instantly.
But I digress, it's hard to see how anyone could claim that gene duplication with mutation is not the kind of mechanism that produces new structures. By very definition, a duplicated gene with a mutation IS a new structure.
Mutations have given certain bacteria the ability to digest nylon, for example.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 8:33:30 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mutations have given certain bacteria the ability to digest nylon, for example. You certainly have studied your talkorigins propaganda well, D_A. It's a shame they forgot to remind you that nylonase is a detrimental enzyme for bacterial efficiency in every other environment without nylon!
BTW, Flavobacterium remain Flavobacterium regardless of their ability to digest nylon...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 9:11:35 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 438
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Mutations have given certain bacteria the ability to digest nylon, for example. You certainly have studied your talkorigins propaganda well, D_A. It's a shame they forgot to remind you that nylonase is a detrimental enzyme for bacterial efficiency in every other environment without nylon!
Yes, but so what? Fitness only makes sense within an environment. Gills are an advantage in the water, but not in the desert. In a nylon-rich environment the ability to digest nylon is an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 11:00:34 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
In a nylon-rich environment the ability to digest nylon is an advantage. Only until the nylon is no longer present. Then there's a bunch of less efficient Flavobacteria that will quickly die off because they can no longer tolerate the new environment.
Real impressive evolutionary mechanism you postulate, veritas. "Fitness" makes no sense at all in your scheme of evolution...
BTW, how many zillions of years has Flavobacterium existed unchanged before nylon was invented?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 1:55:53 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 438
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
In a nylon-rich environment the ability to digest nylon is an advantage. Only until the nylon is no longer present. Then there's a bunch of less efficient Flavobacteria that will quickly die off because they can no longer tolerate the new environment.
Well, this is what we observe. And it makes sense in light of evolution. Selection works with the current environment. Evolution does not plan ahead. If the nylon is removed, the orgnaisms would be less fit in the new environment.
How does this fit in with the idea of baraminology?
quote:
Real impressive evolutionary mechanism you postulate, veritas. "Fitness" makes no sense at all in your scheme of evolution...
It makes perfect sense. What are you having trouble understanding here?
quote:
BTW, how many zillions of years has Flavobacterium existed unchanged before nylon was invented?
I have no idea. If they were well suited to the environment, there would be very little selection pressure.
What does barimonology have to say about this? Does creationism have anything to say about how bacteria develop this ability, or why they should become less fit when the nylon is removed?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 2:26:49 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What does barimonology have to say about this? Does creationism have anything to say about how bacteria develop this ability, or why they should become less fit when the nylon is removed? If you're really interested (and I doubt it), creationism "says" the following: Flavobacterium were created to be Flavobacterium, as they have always been and will always be. Flavobacterium were created with a front-loaded genome which allows them to adapt to different environments while remaining Flavobacterium. Flavobacterium live in this fallen world like the rest of us and their random mutations are almost always deleterious in their natural environment.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 3:18:47 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
It's a shame they forgot to remind you that nylonase is a detrimental enzyme for bacterial efficiency in every other environment without nylon!
....And? So what? Evolution does not state that certain novel features will be beneficial for every type of environment. In fact, it says the opposite. Natural selection chooses the genetic features that best allow survival within that environment.
quote:
Only until the nylon is no longer present. Then there's a bunch of less efficient Flavobacteria that will quickly die off because they can no longer tolerate the new environment.
Real impressive evolutionary mechanism you postulate, veritas. "Fitness" makes no sense at all in your scheme of evolution...
Unless a percentage of the population has a mutation that allows them to survive without nylon. Then that population will survive and that mutation will be selected.
quote:
their random mutations are almost always deleterious in their natural environment.
Uhhh, the ability to digest nylon isn't a deleterious mutation. And mutations are not all deleterious, by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, most mutations are neutral, as harmful mutations usually lead to those individuals dying out before they can reproduce and pass on those harmful mutations.
Most environments don't allow for detrimental mutations to survive for long. That's natural selection.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 3:20:02 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Flavobacterium were created with a front-loaded genome which allows them to adapt to different environments while remaining Flavobacterium.
Do you have a study that has proved the existence of this "front-loaded genome" that allows certain mutations while restricting macroevolution?
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 3:33:24 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do you have a study that has proved the existence of this "front-loaded genome" that allows certain mutations while restricting macroevolution? Oh right, I've been around 50 million years to observe "macro-evolution" in action! How about you?
The real question, D_A, is do you have one single reported instance of any organism evolving into a more complex or more highly differentiated organism due to random mutation and natural selection? I won't be holding my breath while you futilely search the world's literature...
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 4:19:46 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Mutations have given certain bacteria the ability to digest nylon, for example. You certainly have studied your talkorigins propaganda well, D_A. It's a shame they forgot to remind you that nylonase is a detrimental enzyme for bacterial efficiency in every other environment without nylon!
BTW, Flavobacterium remain Flavobacterium regardless of their ability to digest nylon...
Do you have a link to the paper where this phenomenon is described?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 8:37:56 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 438
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
Hold up a second...
Choose, select...
These are actions, and more specifically, these actions require thought and intelligence.
Are you giving weight to an intelligent agent's involvement here? Because choose does not equal "It just happened"
It didn't just happen.
Organisms that are better suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than organisms that are less suited. That is all that selection means. No intelligent agent is selecting or choosing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 9:15:41 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh right, I've been around 50 million years to observe "macro-evolution" in action!
Umm.... I think you should reread what I was asking (by reading the context).
quote:
The real question, D_A, is do you have one single reported instance of any organism evolving into a more complex or more highly differentiated organism due to random mutation and natural selection?
Evolution does not state that organisms always become "more complex," nor does it state that populations that have evolved from a different population need be "highly differentiated." Also, macroevolution (speciation) has been directly observed many times.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 10:45:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolution does not state that organisms always become "more complex," nor does it state that populations that have evolved from a different population need be "highly differentiated." Also, macroevolution (speciation) has been directly observed many times. Okay, D_A, it's become painfully obvious that you're just another in a long line of misinformed naturalists posting here who enjoy redefining"evolution" to mean whatever you need it to mean for your current bait-and-switch con game. I really don't have time for semantic gymnastics. Have a nice day and God bless.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/27/2010 11:41:44 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 438
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Evolution does not state that organisms always become "more complex," nor does it state that populations that have evolved from a different population need be "highly differentiated." Also, macroevolution (speciation) has been directly observed many times. Okay, D_A, it's become painfully obvious that you're just another in a long line of misinformed naturalists posting here who enjoy redefining"evolution" to mean whatever you need it to mean for your current bait-and-switch con game. I really don't have time for semantic gymnastics. Have a nice day and God bless.
That's rich! Creationists redefine evolution to mean something else entirely, and when their error is pointed out, they turn around and accuse the evolutionists of redefining "evolution".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 2:57:39 AM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
Don't be silly Veritas.
We all know what the definition of "evolution" is.
It's the thing that led to Nazi Germany.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 12:19:55 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Okay, D_A, it's become painfully obvious that you're just another in a long line of misinformed naturalists posting here who enjoy redefining"evolution" to mean whatever you need it to mean for your current bait-and-switch con game.
Ah, so evolution DOES mean that organisms will always evolve into more complex creatures?
Please explain evolution to me, if I'm misinformed.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 12:34:05 PM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 409
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
Hold up a second...
Choose, select...
These are actions, and more specifically, these actions require thought and intelligence.
Are you giving weight to an intelligent agent's involvement here? Because choose does not equal "It just happened"
It didn't just happen.
Organisms that are better suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than organisms that are less suited. That is all that selection means. No intelligent agent is selecting or choosing.
If bacteria are so ill-suited to their environment, why are they still here along with us?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 12:39:11 PM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 409
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
Okay, D_A, it's become painfully obvious that you're just another in a long line of misinformed naturalists posting here who enjoy redefining"evolution" to mean whatever you need it to mean for your current bait-and-switch con game.
Ah, so evolution DOES mean that organisms will always evolve into more complex creatures?
Please explain evolution to me, if I'm misinformed.
Dante
The only evolution that is really of any interest to any of us concerns organisms that become more advanced or become another species.
I won't argue that adaptation happens. Giraffes getting longer necks over time does not mean a fish will develop a lung and flop on out of the water. Oh... over millions and millions of years....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 1:57:39 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 438
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ohioman1972
Hold up a second...
Choose, select...
These are actions, and more specifically, these actions require thought and intelligence.
Are you giving weight to an intelligent agent's involvement here? Because choose does not equal "It just happened"
It didn't just happen.
Organisms that are better suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than organisms that are less suited. That is all that selection means. No intelligent agent is selecting or choosing.
If bacteria are so ill-suited to their environment, why are they still here along with us?
What makes you think that bacteria are ill-suited to their environment?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 2:14:15 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
What's the OP again?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
