Author Topic: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor  (Read 6276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #145 on: December 17, 2011, 09:33:06 AM »
We are really strange when you think about it.

All things are strange when you think about it. Like the fact that you can't touch anything (electromagnetism keeps particles away from each other at a sub-atomic level) and yet can feel everything as if you were.

We have more bacterial cells than human,

That's synergy. :P

we are coded for virus more than anything else

Which sucks. Thankfully, we also have modern medicine and will eliminate all of them... eventually.

and we have less genetic info than a grain of rice.

That doesn't really count for much, does it?

God really has a sense of humor.

Totally.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #146 on: December 17, 2011, 09:37:17 AM »
Well, I was just wondering how BibleStudent (creationists) would account for this.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #147 on: December 17, 2011, 09:40:34 AM »
Well, I was just wondering how BibleStudent (creationists) would account for this.

I think we covered most of the possible explanations:
God has a twisted sense of humor.
God wants us to suffer.
God doesn't exist.

My guess is that BS will try to get out of this with some twisted logic so that his god is still awesome with a capital D[1].
 1. For "Dick".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #148 on: December 17, 2011, 09:46:01 AM »
Who knows? Denial comes before acceptance. I think that if he sticks to the topic long enough he will change his views. Or....the cognitive dissonance...

ADDED: On second thot, he could adopt the position that evolution is correct, but godidit.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 09:54:15 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #149 on: December 17, 2011, 11:10:22 AM »
Edited to remove a twitchy knee...


It is almost startling sometimes to see the weak evidence which is relied upon to verify the branches and twigs on parts of these dreamed up phylogenetic trees.

This is nothing more than a bunch of nicely arranged words with very little to no evidence to support them. Is that all there is?...and THAT is what you rely on ?

No, BibleStudent, we don't. You're beginning to seem disengenuous here. We have fossils that show morphological changes over millions of years. We have genetic studies that show both clear relationships between different groups of animals and a way to estimate the rate of change between them, as in humans and chimps.

Rather, it is creationism and it's latest incarnation, intelligent design, that are the bunches "of nicely (re)arranged words" (literally, google "cdesign proponentsists")with no evidence to back them up.

Quote
A fossil study was conducted in the very recent past by Alexandra Houssaye. The fossil is named Eupodophis descouensi. You can do a Google and find information about the study if you want to. Her conclusion: “The question of snake origin should not be resolved in the next 10 years.” In other words, there is nothing in the fossil record that verifies any ancestor to snakes.

I assume you mean this discovery, if not this particular article:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12393387? The article discusses a particular find and how it relates to the competing theories for snake evolution. I don't see where anyone in it disputes that snakes did evolve from a very different ancestor, be it a burrowing lizard or a marine reptile.

You complain about us making absolute statements; how do you get "nothing in the fossil record" from one scientist saying "should not be resolved in the next 10 years"?
You have been, without doubt, one of the more pleasant individuals I have had the privilege of interacting with here and I would like to maintain that….so, please do not infer ‘tone’ in my response. You are not accurately tracking with the conversation. Allow me to illustrate:

1.   I contended that there is no confirming evidence of speciation.
2.   I was then provided with a link that supposedly provided examples.
3.   I indicated that the examples only demonstrated that a bird was still a bird and that a
        fruitfly was still a fruitfly….and then challenged that the same type of evidence for the more
        dramatic (macro, if you will) lizard-to-snake speciation event was lacking.
4.   I was then provided with a reference to an excerpt which was alleged to be this evidence.
5.   I countered that the simple diagram provided lacked the same substance of the bird-to-bird
        evidence and was nothing more than a creative arrangement of words….which was
        presented as though it were the equal to the bird-to-bird type example.
6.   I went on to demonstrate this by referencing the results of a study performed on an alleged
        lizard-to-snake fossil.
7.   My comment that there is no fossil record verifying this speciation event is correct as
        demonstrated by the results of the study.

I have proven my point.

Unlike the bird-to-bird type example, there is no confirming evidence for a lizard-to-snake event. That is precisely why I can very accurately say that “there is nothing in the fossil record that verifies any ancestor to snakes.”

As for coming across as disingenuous, you are incorrect. I am as serious as I suspect you are.  I did not make my statements for effect or to add drama to the discussion. I truly am startled sometimes at the level of inference which is employed to create a confirming lizard-to-snake type argument. It is often on par with the same level of willful ignorance I am so often accused of. The non-theist is somehow expected to believe and accept these unconfirmed inferences without question.....when, as I have demonstrated above, the most assuredly deserve to be questioned.



Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #150 on: December 17, 2011, 11:45:56 AM »
Never mind I misunderstood the debate.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 11:51:39 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1938
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #151 on: December 17, 2011, 01:07:32 PM »

You have been, without doubt, one of the more pleasant individuals I have had the privilege of interacting with here and I would like to maintain that….so, please do not infer ‘tone’ in my response. You are not accurately tracking with the conversation. Allow me to illustrate:

1.   I contended that there is no confirming evidence of speciation.
2.   I was then provided with a link that supposedly provided examples.
3.   I indicated that the examples only demonstrated that a bird was still a bird and that a
        fruitfly was still a fruitfly….and then challenged that the same type of evidence for the more
        dramatic (macro, if you will) lizard-to-snake speciation event was lacking.
4.   I was then provided with a reference to an excerpt which was alleged to be this evidence.
5.   I countered that the simple diagram provided lacked the same substance of the bird-to-bird
        evidence and was nothing more than a creative arrangement of words….which was
        presented as though it were the equal to the bird-to-bird type example.
6.   I went on to demonstrate this by referencing the results of a study performed on an alleged
        lizard-to-snake fossil.
7.   My comment that there is no fossil record verifying this speciation event is correct as
        demonstrated by the results of the study.

I have proven my point.

Unlike the bird-to-bird type example, there is no confirming evidence for a lizard-to-snake event. That is precisely why I can very accurately say that “there is nothing in the fossil record that verifies any ancestor to snakes.”

As for coming across as disingenuous, you are incorrect. I am as serious as I suspect you are.  I did not make my statements for effect or to add drama to the discussion. I truly am startled sometimes at the level of inference which is employed to create a confirming lizard-to-snake type argument. It is often on par with the same level of willful ignorance I am so often accused of. The non-theist is somehow expected to believe and accept these unconfirmed inferences without question.....when, as I have demonstrated above, the most assuredly deserve to be questioned.

First, your civil responses have been appreciated too. I apologize for misunderstanding your tone; such things can be difficult to judge in this medium.

Okay, I concede that I have failed to show an ancestral progression of modern snakes from their legged ancestors to your satisfaction. I hope you will realize this is in part a personal failure (mine), not the actual evidence and the science that confirms that evidence.

But it is also a failure on your part to not accept "macro" evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence for that process. Though I've failed to prove this particular lineage to you personally, there are other ancestral lineages, such as whales... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

horses... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

and even completely extinct (or nearly so) lineages like the dinosaurs, whose descendants are the modern birds... http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/origin_and_early_evolution_birds

On your part, you've yet to show how the small "micro" changes you accept cannot add up to much larger ones. The ludicrous idea that a species is somehow "locked" and cannot cope with the mutation / natural selection that add up to evolutionary change (hmm, that may be redundant) has been thoroughly discredited.

Again, there is as yet no better way than the ToE to explain the evidence we have, BibleStudent. If you know of one, present it and back it up with evidence.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #152 on: December 17, 2011, 02:07:34 PM »
To Biblestudent:

Fossils are hard to find. Yes?
Snake fossils are even harder to find. Yes?
So it makes sense that there are “holes” in the fossil record, doesn’t it?

Looking at the fossil record as a whole, one finds older fossil beds contain  fossils of  simpler life forms. Yes?
There is a consistent progression in strata containing fossils from the oldest to the youngest (simplest to more complex life forms found therein). Yes?
So doesn’t it make sense that scientists would consider something like LUCA? If not, why not?

That snakes (or lizards) evolved is not being debated by paleontologists. Yes?
Weather snakes came from land dwellers or ocean dwellers is being debated. Yes?
Hence, the kinds argument, or micro/macro-right?
The debate may be settled by DNA. That remains to be seen (gasp!).
Will DNA evidence be acceptable evidence in settling the question of snake ancestors (Biblestudent)?
What difference would it make if the ancestor to the snake is a lizard or if they both had a common ancestor, or if the snakes ancestor is from the ocean?

Have you looked at the evidence for transitional fossils, such as that found here, or just that on snakes?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

If you accept the evidence provided by Wright regarding whales and horses, (and or read the transition faq provided) will you change your position?






Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #153 on: December 18, 2011, 12:50:59 AM »
BibleStudent, you still have to answer my question. Are you avoiding it?

How did they measure the information in bacteria and horses to "know" that a horse has "more" information than a bacteria?

It seems like all creationists always declare things similar to this, but I've never seen anyone demonstrate it. As you brought it up here, how do you know, apart from believing declarations about it by creationists? If you don't know how, can you refer to a peer-reviewed scientific article where this is done?

I'n no biologist, but I've got a good reason to ask this, as bacteria are eukaryotic cells. The horse is made up of a collection of eukaryotic cells (unless you reject the cell theory too, as it is "just" a theory), which started off as one cell just after conception. This cell kept on splitting and the "daughter" cells kept on splitting and splitting to eventually for a horse,  though each of the cells forming a horse has the same "information" the first of that horse's cells had (that's my understanding of it, I'm not a biologist and might be wrong).

How do you get to "a horse has more" information than a bacteria"? How did they measure this? Without this very trivial piece of information, you can't actually use the "argument" about "information" in organisms. We're not in your church where everyone just believes what the pastor or priest or minister says. We want to know how you got to that conclusion. Only after that we'll know whether you are correct, partially correct, incorrect, ignorant, or told a blatant lie.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 12:55:50 AM by Lurking »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #154 on: December 18, 2011, 01:04:24 AM »
I'n no biologist, but I've got a good reason to ask this, as bacteria are eukaryotic cells. ...

A quibble:  bacteria are prokaryotic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
Quote from: Wiki
Once regarded as plants constituting the class Schizomycetes, bacteria are now classified as prokaryotes. Unlike cells of animals and other eukaryotes, bacterial cells do not contain a nucleus and rarely harbour membrane-bound organelles. Although the term bacteria traditionally included all prokaryotes, the scientific classification changed after the discovery in the 1990s that prokaryotes consist of two very different groups of organisms that evolved independently from an ancient common ancestor. These evolutionary domains are called Bacteria and Archaea.[10]

Your basic point does stand, however.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #155 on: December 18, 2011, 01:31:44 AM »
A quibble:  bacteria are prokaryotic. Your basic point does stand, however.
Thanks, as I said I'm no biologist.

BibleStudent, how did they measure the information in the cells of a horse to declare that it has "more information" than a bacteria?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 02:29:43 AM by Lurking »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #156 on: December 18, 2011, 11:01:22 AM »
A quibble:  bacteria are prokaryotic. Your basic point does stand, however.
Thanks, as I said I'm no biologist.

BibleStudent, how did they measure the information in the cells of a horse to declare that it has "more information" than a bacteria?

The comment you reference was not a comment that I made. Nonetheless, I did introduce it to the discussion so I should be able to explain what I interpreted it to mean. I am not a biologist either but I assumed that the author was referring to genome size....or, to be more specific, the number of genes.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #157 on: December 18, 2011, 12:19:25 PM »
A quibble:  bacteria are prokaryotic. Your basic point does stand, however.
Thanks, as I said I'm no biologist.

BibleStudent, how did they measure the information in the cells of a horse to declare that it has "more information" than a bacteria?

The comment you reference was not a comment that I made. Nonetheless, I did introduce it to the discussion so I should be able to explain what I interpreted it to mean. I am not a biologist either but I assumed that the author was referring to genome size....or, to be more specific, the number of genes.
Information is found not the number of genes but the sequence of genes.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna
Quote
The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human  The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

 A grain of rice has more genes than a human.
http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8178.pdf

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #158 on: December 18, 2011, 11:01:00 PM »
The comment you reference was not a comment that I made. Nonetheless, I did introduce it to the discussion so I should be able to explain what I interpreted it to mean. I am not a biologist either but I assumed that the author was referring to genome size....or, to be more specific, the number of genes.
Oh, so you just copied and pasted from creationists then. You don’t even know, you just believe their claims religiously. You have blind faith that creationists never lie. Let me tell you a very open secret: creationists never stop lying. They have to lie; they've got nothing else.

Reading the other posts here, with the genome size of a grain of rice containing "more information" than a human according to your definition, I guess your definition of “more” or “less” information doesn’t work then. Could you give me one where it is shown that a horse has “more information” than bacteria? A unit of measurement that works?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 11:17:09 PM by Lurking »

Offline Lurking

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • I'm way too old to be a student
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #159 on: December 19, 2011, 12:06:52 AM »
I had a look at BibleStudent’s random creationist liar copy-and-paste job again. Your source just can’t stop lying!
Quote from: BibleStudent’s random creationist liar
For a dinosaur to turn into a bird, you need to give it new genetic information that tells the body how to grow feathers.
Not at all. We have dinosaur fossils with feathers, all neatly in place. And, to our great advantage, we even have a range of dinosaur fossils even showing the evolutionary changes for developing feathers! No "new genetic information" necessary for the process of developing feathers when birds evolved from dinosaurs. Notice the other lie: "a dinosaur turning into a bird". That's certainly not what the Theory of Evolution suggests.
Quote from: BibleStudent’s random creationist liar
There is no known process that creates genetic information.
Those citrate digesting bacteria  have been studied very carefully.  We can even tell you which mutations added the new information to be able to digest citrate.

Your random creationist liar lied again. That’s all they can do.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #160 on: December 19, 2011, 10:24:00 AM »
@Lurking & Monkeymind-

I think some of you are reading more into the author’s comments than he intended. Personally, I did not infer that he was saying that the ‘size’ of the genetic makeup had anything to do with the fact that a horse is a larger, more complex creature than bacteria. Instead of just focusing on a single comment, you need to read the entire article because I think that perhaps you are taking it out of context. The whole point he was attempting to make (using the horse and bacteria as an example) is that the genetic makeup of a horse is greater than that of  bacteria, so where did this ‘new’ or ‘different’ information come from and, more importantly, ‘how.’ The article dealt primarily with the argument that ‘micro’ does not equal ‘macro.’

You can point out that rice has “more genes” than a human but the point he makes still stands.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 10:26:08 AM by BibleStudent »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #161 on: December 19, 2011, 10:55:22 AM »
Those citrate digesting bacteria  have been studied very carefully.  We can even tell you which mutations added the new information to be able to digest citrate.

Oh my. You sure you want to go there?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #162 on: December 19, 2011, 11:17:41 AM »
^^ Yeah, that kid from Conservapedia demanded that the scientist send him his bacteria, and the scientist didn't do so.  He only sent his notes/data.  Dodgy stuff, that!  Guy must be lying through his teeth...for some reason.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #163 on: December 19, 2011, 11:25:10 AM »
^^ Yeah, that kid from Conservapedia demanded that the scientist send him his bacteria, and the scientist didn't do so.  He only sent his notes/data.  Dodgy stuff, that!  Guy must be lying through his teeth...for some reason.

LOL...
Yeah, but the scientist would have sent it if the kid would have just cooperated, right?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #164 on: December 19, 2011, 11:29:36 AM »
Well if the kid wouldn't have just destroyed the samples to sabotage the guy's work in any way possible, then yeah.  Schaffer (or whatever his name is) is a notorious liar, on all sorts of topics.

Anyway, clearly Lurking did want to "go there".  What dishonest apologetics can you cite for disingenuous objection to this topic?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #165 on: December 19, 2011, 12:42:42 PM »
Is there any disagreement within the scientific community that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil? If so, why is there disagreement? What is the scientific basis that warrants the dispute? 
How is this relevant?
  I want to know what you mean by this phrase in your question: “1. Is Archaeopteryx universally accepted as a transitional fossil? If not, why?”  Why is it important?  It will show me if you understand even the most basic points of the scientific method.  So, answer the question.     
Quote
For the purpose of this discussion pertaining to Archaeopteryx, let’s say that it is a fossil that confirms speciation.
Good for you for making up your own definition!  From this it seems that you want a transitional fossil to be the dreaded half-crocodile half-duck that idiots like Comfort want. Considering that evolutionary theory doesn’t work this way, and that most changes are incremental, you show that you are ignorant in its basic format.  Again, we have a creationist attacking something he is ignorant about. 
Quote
There are….but none that confirms a speciation event occurred.
And
That’s pretty funny.  first you want to claim a transitional fossil is something that “confirms speciation”.  You say that there are indeed transitional fossils, but then we have you claiming that they don’t show speciation.  :D  Which is it, BS?   we have lines of fossils that show the incremental changes that are predicted by evolutionary theory, and every time we find a new one, creationists try ignore it.  It would be cute if you were all five years old playing peekaboo, but it gets tedious with willfully ignorant adults.
Quote
Yes but my knowledge of the subject matter is irrelevant at this point. You can call it into question once you've given me an opportunity to examine whatever evidence you present.
No, it isnt’ irrelevant, no matter how much you stomp your little feet and say it is.  Fossils and how they are made impact the idea of transitional fossils would determine how evolution works.  If a creationist is so ignorant to want to see every single step, and think that this is possible then they are asking for the impossible for the sole reason to put off the inevitable. It’s nice that we don’t have eto depend on the fossil record to show that evolutionary theory works.  It works right in a petri dish.  You’ll of course claim that as “microevolution” but your bastardization of that term just makes you an amusing heretic to those creationists who claimed that they had the “truth” a hundred years ago.   
Quote
This is an EPIC fail, Velkyn. Where is the scientific data, the peer reviewed papers, the evidence that demonstrates anything you’ve said….the very same material you demand of me and other theists?
You think I couldn’t give you references.  Poor BS.  So desperate that you don’t even consider that.  The hypocrisy, the lies, sigh, it just can’t get any better.  Poor BS, can’t possibly to some research on his own.  Tsk.  But again, it’s hilarious to see the Christian trying to put off the inevitable:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/miot-ekt032310.php
http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-10-19/news/17703562_1_prefrontal-cortex-nature-neuroscience-brain
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129027124
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Brain-Evolution-Georg-Striedter/dp/0878938206

If the nonsense about souls and morals from god is correct, then brain damage should have no effect. It does. The best creationists have to claim is that the brain is some radio set for the soul and of course have no evidence of such a thing.

we have some physical evidence but again, as with fossils, a lot of Africa to unearth yet. we could find much earlier evidence of all of these, and then the poor creationists would claim that science was wrong since we followed the evidence and not their lies about how dogmatic science is.  Again, demonstrating their willful ignorance and desperation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Lots of good references from those wiki articles, so do take it upon yourself to look at the originals.   Unfortunatley for you, there is no similar things to the claims you’ve made.
Quote
This is almost laughable. It is evident that you have not researched the evolution of bipedalism and you should have said so rather than responding just so you could say you responded. Wanna try again?
  You want to claim that I have not researched the evolution of bipedalism?  Then show me what it supposedly says that doesn’t match with my review.  I’m waiting.  I have no problem in being shown wrong, but I do insist on being shown.  I don’t go for ignorant men trying to make vague claims and of course, not supporting them again. 
Now, in case you can’t find anything, let’s start you off here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skeletal_changes_due_to_bipedalism 
http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/chp15.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/index.html

oh and that last link, has even more about how brains evolved and how we can see intelligence, altruism, etc. Very nice website.
Quote
Without something to support and validate your “concrete bits” I would simply be contending with your opinion, now wouldn’t I?? C’mon, I only gave you three simple questions rather than the 20-30 I could have. This is a great opportunity for you to meet the challenge of a “foolish” “lying” “willfully ignorant” theist and validate your claims with regards to the ToE. I already know that you cannot provide the same level of irrefutable empirical evidence you require of the theist to accomplish this so if you want to just concede now, I am fine with that.

Your wish is my command.  Go to it, BS.  I’ve given you lots of references and can give you more.  As you can see, it’s not opinion at all, and your attempt to claim that you “already know” anything, fails again.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #166 on: December 19, 2011, 01:34:37 PM »
@Lurking & Monkeymind-

I think some of you are reading more into the author’s comments than he intended. Personally, I did not infer that he was saying that the ‘size’ of the genetic makeup had anything to do with the fact that a horse is a larger, more complex creature than bacteria. Instead of just focusing on a single comment, you need to read the entire article because I think that perhaps you are taking it out of context. The whole point he was attempting to make (using the horse and bacteria as an example) is that the genetic makeup of a horse is greater than that of  bacteria, so where did this ‘new’ or ‘different’ information come from and, more importantly, ‘how.’ The article dealt primarily with the argument that ‘micro’ does not equal ‘macro.’

You can point out that rice has “more genes” than a human but the point he makes still stands.

So in the case of rice or horses, or whatever, where did the new or different information come from, in your opinion?

And could you answer my questions from  previous post?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #167 on: December 19, 2011, 01:45:44 PM »
How does this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/miot-ekt032310.php
http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-10-19/news/17703562_1_prefrontal-cortex-nature-neuroscience-brain
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129027124
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Brain-Evolution-Georg-Striedter/dp/0878938206

Answer this:
2. When, why, and how did humans evolve intelligence, morality, and altruism? Please provide the order in which each evolved and please provide the specific biological process that has been thoroughly tested and accounts for this.

It doesn’t. Not even close. One of your links leads to a book for sale on Amazon.com. WTH ?? Come on, Velkyn, if you don’t have the time or the inclination to participate, just say so.

I will continue to read through and review the material you posted but I think the above illustrates what I indicated in an earlier post and, that is, that you are just plugging stuff in so you can say that you did.

Also, I’ve been ‘lectured’ on here before about using my own words the majority of the time to make an argument. Seems you don’t necessarily agree with that unwritten rule?


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #168 on: December 19, 2011, 01:48:47 PM »
So in the case of rice or horses, or whatever, where did the new or different information come from, in your opinion?

Seems like kind of a strange question to be asking a theist. I believe in God, remember?

Quote
And could you answer my questions from  previous post?
Which questions are you referring to?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #169 on: December 19, 2011, 01:54:56 PM »
How does this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/miot-ekt032310.php
http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-10-19/news/17703562_1_prefrontal-cortex-nature-neuroscience-brain
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129027124
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Brain-Evolution-Georg-Striedter/dp/0878938206
Answer this:
2. When, why, and how did humans evolve intelligence, morality, and altruism? Please provide the order in which each evolved and please provide the specific biological process that has been thoroughly tested and accounts for this.
It doesn’t. Not even close. One of your links leads to a book for sale on Amazon.com. WTH ?? Come on, Velkyn, if you don’t have the time or the inclination to participate, just say so.
  How cute. You make a declaration that it doesn’t but can’t show how.  Yep, it does, dear BS, but you of course won’t acknowledge it.  It’s just your desperate deceitful way.  You wanted references to support my claims.  See right here
Quote
This is an EPIC fail, Velkyn. Where is the scientific data, the peer reviewed papers, the evidence that demonstrates anything you’ve said….the very same material you demand of me and other theists?
  Gave them and *of course* you are not happy with that. :D  You are so predictable. 

Quote
I will continue to read through and review the material you posted but I think the above illustrates what I indicated in an earlier post and, that is, that you are just plugging stuff in so you can say that you did.
Well, you might think so, but as you are in so many cases, you are wrong. 
Quote
Also, I’ve been ‘lectured’ on here before about using my own words the majority of the time to make an argument. Seems you don’t necessarily agree with that unwritten rule?
   Nope, not when you asked for the scientific data, peer reviewed papers, etc.  Nice try, bubie, but you fail again.  But keep going. I’m waiting with bated breath to see the opinions of someone ignorant of basic science about the things he requested.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #170 on: December 19, 2011, 01:58:12 PM »
So in the case of rice or horses, or whatever, where did the new or different information come from, in your opinion?

Seems like kind of a strange question to be asking a theist. I believe in God, remember?

Quote
And could you answer my questions from  previous post?
Which questions are you referring to?

That's your answer?
OK, I'll answer where new information comes from:
Duplication, rearrangement and natural selection.

Now please answer my questions from post 152
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #171 on: December 19, 2011, 03:55:31 PM »
Some ways new genetic material can be acquired:

Paramecium exchange genetic material through conjugation. So they're askin' fer it!

Bacteria acquire DNA  through transformation, conjugation and transduction. But who cares?

A quick Google shows this recent article which says:
About 8% of human genetic material comes from a virus.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107103621.htm


So tell gawd to stay the hell outta my DNA!
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #172 on: December 19, 2011, 04:08:28 PM »
It is almost startling sometimes to see the weak evidence which is relied upon to verify the branches and twigs on parts of these dreamed up phylogenetic trees.

This is nothing more than a bunch of nicely arranged words with very little to no evidence to support them. Is that all there is?...and THAT is what you rely on ?

4.   I was then provided with a reference to an excerpt which was alleged to be this evidence.
5.   I countered that the simple diagram provided lacked the same substance of the bird-to-bird
        evidence and was nothing more than a creative arrangement of words….which was
        presented as though it were the equal to the bird-to-bird type example.

WTF?

That wasn't evidence, that was classification and definition.

A different species can still share many of the same traits as its closest relative. A lion is a different species from a tiger, but they're both still oversized cats (Panthera Leo vs Panthera Tigris).

You asked for speciation, so that is what you got.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #173 on: December 19, 2011, 04:47:34 PM »
You answered my last question (where did new genetic material come from) with you believe in god.

What happened Biblestudent? You were sitting there for 2 hours. Were you waiting for god to talk to you, or were you trying to find answers in the Wholly Babble?

Because I really would like to see how you explain horizontal gene transfer and gene duplication in King James.


Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.