A Question for Creationists

[Robert]

Jack: Uh... what's left to answer? I can't answer the one about the number of mutations involved in the whole process, I don't know that.

But you agree with me it's more than one mutation ?
Even more than 3 mutations, to get an as simple as possible working eye that won't make the organism 'less fit' ? (and for that reason die out)

Jack: That's easier, because we still have living examples of creatures that can reproduce both sexually and asexually.

That's a true thing,
but it doesn't answer how it evolved into that.
Nobody believes that the mamal-way of reproducing could be the result of one random mutation.
Of course in theory it could be possible that any organism would reproduce by 'DNA exchange' or whatever way, while evolving sexual organs.

But that means that any organism at any given time had two kinds of reproduction methods, with one of these two being unfinished. That's against 'the survival of the fittests' unless any half-finished reproduction method would give any benefits to the organism.

Later in the process, male and female have to evolve, seperate to each other. Since nobody believes that spontaneously the male and female got one big mutation that resulted in the sexual organs we have right now.

How could this evolution process ever happen ??
Any penis would make any organism less fit if there's no vagina it could fit in. Just to state it easily.
The penis and the vagine must have evolved simultaniously.
The entire process of mamal-reproduction can't have evolved by one mutation. Hundreds of mutations are needed, the mother must have mutated to be able to bear and feed 'kids', the father must have mutated meanwhile to produce semen.

How could this EVER have evolved by accident ?
A simple step-by-step way is impossible. A simplified working mamal-reproduction system will always be either not working and for that reason make the mamal less fit, or........ well, there is no 'or' option.

Jack: The nylon bug certainly has a "new" functionality, because it didn't exist before nylon.

correct me if I'm wrong (and it's very obvious that it's wrong)
nylon bugs eath nylon, right ?
The bug itself did not change, the food it eats changed.
Like we humans didn't eat macdonalds hamburgers in the past.
Eating is not a new functionality. It's the same functionality, but only modified to be able to consume nylon.
Still a great example of micro evolution, that's a sure thing.

Jack: Of course, any new functionality WOULD be a "mutated" functionality. That's the point!

"Blood streaming through vains pumped around by a heart" is for sure a 'functionality' that was not available in micro organisms. It's for that reason not a mutated functionality.

A new evolved organ will always be more than a mutation.
For sure if the 'old' organ still exists.

----

Pherhaps someone else can continue on:

- Vacuum Fluctuations....... someone dropped (must have been Zu again) don't just mention it, explain it. (briefly, if you won't spend much time)

(how can vacuum fluctuations happen if there's no vacuum ? is just a simple question you could answer as well)

CyberShy

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think you are really just misuderstanding the concept of time and causality. God's knowledge of our actions in no way predestines them.

If God knows our actions ahead of time there must be a means for accurate prediction of those events. However that prediction works, whatever the mechanism, it means everything that happens is predestined.

If we have free will then the decisions are ours to make by definition.

I'm not saying you can have predestined free will, quite the opposite.

Since you like examples, let me give you one. Say I watch everything you do, and note down every decision you make for your entire life. And then, after you are dead, I build a time machine and travel back to your birth and observe you once again. Assuming that my presence goes undetected (and doesn't cause chaotic effects through the collapse of wave functions) you will make exactly the same decisions as 'before'. Just because I know what you will do, does not make them my decisions - you still have free-will.

Of course. That would just prove there is a definite way that things will happen. If there was free will, my choices might not be the same the second time around. Free will would have to operate on a non-causal, non-predictable, non-random basis.

If you do not believe that we have you are on a sticky wicket, because even most atheists would disagree with you. I do however agree that one can come up with a consistent model if you are willing to abbandon free-will, but then you really have to ask yourself: why bother?

I don't really care who disagrees with me, atheist or otherwise. You shouldn't overgeneralize about what "most people" think, it isn't a valid proof one way or another. "Most people" have been wrong before, laws of physics are not democratic.

To me free will seems a concept which people use to boost their ego and look down on others. They say 'I would have done this instead of that' when in reality they would have done the same thing given the circumstances (internal and environmental).

You ask why bother? Because that's what I'm programmed to do. Understanding how the human brain works is something that I'm sure you can see incentive for. In an personal light, the abstract realization that choice is a causal process has helped me be much less judgemental of myself and others. It could very well lead to apathy, the right motivations need to be present to prevent it. The same can be said of any philosophical system though.

If you could explain how free will functions I would be most interested to hear it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

But you agree with me it's more than one mutation ?
Even more than 3 mutations, to get an as simple as possible working eye that won't make the organism 'less fit' ? (and for that reason die out)

Photochemical reactions are common enough to happen by accident. In a simple organism, a photochemical reaction can cause a burst of random activity (like being injected with a stimulant, or receiving an electric shock). Natural selection can then work on those who happen to react in a beneficial fashion, just as plants which grow towards the light have an advantage over those that don't.

Jack: That's easier, because we still have living examples of creatures that can reproduce both sexually and asexually.

That's a true thing,
but it doesn't answer how it evolved into that.
Nobody believes that the mamal-way of reproducing could be the result of one random mutation.

Correct: they don't.

Of course in theory it could be possible that any organism would reproduce by 'DNA exchange' or whatever way, while evolving sexual organs.

But that means that any organism at any given time had two kinds of reproduction methods, with one of these two being unfinished. That's against 'the survival of the fittests' unless any half-finished reproduction method would give any benefits to the organism.

A half-finished tendency to reproduce sexually (probably beginning with an accidental transfer of DNA) would confer an advantage. Sexual reproduction aids evolution by throwing genes into the melting pot. Some offspring will inherit multiple beneficial traits from both parents: others won't, but those will not prevail.

Later in the process, male and female have to evolve, seperate to each other. Since nobody believes that spontaneously the male and female got one big mutation that resulted in the sexual organs we have right now.

How could this evolution process ever happen ??
Any penis would make any organism less fit if there's no vagina it could fit in. Just to state it easily.

Whoa there. Sexual reproduction evolved in aquatic organisms. They don't need that sort of equipment: the female lays eggs, the male releases semen into the water. Our own equipment is a later adaptation to the "no water" problem.

correct me if I'm wrong (and it's very obvious that it's wrong)
nylon bugs eath nylon, right ?
The bug itself did not change, the food it eats changed.
Like we humans didn't eat macdonalds hamburgers in the past.
Eating is not a new functionality. It's the same functionality, but only modified to be able to consume nylon.
Still a great example of micro evolution, that's a sure thing.

No, the bug itself changed. It could not eat nylon: then, suddenly, it could.

And it is MACRO-evolution, if this is defined as "the addition of new information". The ability did not exist before: mutation created it.

Jack: Of course, any new functionality WOULD be a "mutated" functionality. That's the point!

"Blood streaming through vains pumped around by a heart" is for sure a 'functionality' that was not available in micro organisms. It's for that reason not a mutated functionality.

A new evolved organ will always be more than a mutation.
For sure if the 'old' organ still exists.

That would require multiple mutations over a long period of time. Again, we have examples of creatures with "blood" but no hearts, those whose blood moves about as the body flexes, those with one-way valves to make this move directional, those with special muscles to help shift the blood, and so on.

According to evolution, fully-functional organs never appear from nowhere as the result of a single mutation: other body parts change shape and function gradually over time. Humans, for instance, don't have any organs that other apes don't have: only sizes and proportions are different.

However, if you want examples of potentially useful traits appearing suddenly in large organisms as the result of a sigle mutation, I can provide two. One was an incident in a discussion with an ID'er, who claimed (baselessly, as usual) that there was "not enough time" for elephants to become hairy mammoths quickly enough to cope with climate change during Ice Ages. I cited "wolfman syndrome" in humans as an example of a near-hairless mammal becoming hairy in a single generation as a result of a dominant trait arising from a single mutation.

Another possible example is an extreme case of polydactyly (extra digits) in cats. One cat had six toes on each hind paw and seven on each front paw. The front digits included a pair of opposable thumbs, allowing this cat to manipulate objects with almost human dexterity. If humans suddenly died out in a super-virulent smallpox epidemic, then feral cats who can easily grip, pull and twist human-made objects would have an advantage.

Each is an example of the addition of a potentially useful trait in one step. Further mutations might improve those traits if they turn out to be beneficial.

[Robert]

jack: In a simple organism, a photochemical reaction can cause a burst of random activity (like being injected with a stimulant, or receiving an electric shock). Natural selection can then work on those who happen to react in a beneficial fashion

You don't answer the question.
I agree with all you said before. The simplistic examples you come with are true, but don't cover the question.

The point is that at one moment in time simultanious mutations must have happened to:
- make the 'eye' send information
- make nerves to transmit this information
- make the 'brains' ready to receive information
- make the brain able to compute this information

In whatever primitive form this happens.
Any eye that will send information without any transmit functionalitly will make the organism less fit.
Any transport functionality (nerves) will make the organism less fit if there's no information to transport
Any brain that will be able to receive and compute information but that will not receive any, will make the body less fit.

Thus 4 mutations are needed at one moment in time simultaniously, because that's the way OUR eye works. The system our body uses must have mutated / evolved one day.

You need at least 4 mutations for that.
If mutations happen every 1000 reproductions,
and one out of 1000000 will be a good mutation, we need 1000^1000000^4 reproductions to get a fine working simplistic eye-brain combination.

And there's of course still the change that this rare new organism will be eaten before it did reproduce itself.

Jack: A half-finished tendency to reproduce sexually (probably beginning with an accidental transfer of DNA) would confer an advantage.

Again an answer that doesn't cover the question.
Of course there are exmples of half-finished reproduction methods that do actually benefit, but how do you explain that the ability for the 'mother' to be able to wear a 'baby' could benefit if it's not ready yet ?

Jack: Whoa there. Sexual reproduction evolved in aquatic organisms. They don't need that sort of equipment: the female lays eggs, the male releases semen into the water. Our own equipment is a later adaptation to the "no water" problem.

We're not talking about aquatic organisms, of course those work that way, but at one moment in time 'our' sexual organs must have evolved. And the male and female organs must have evolved simultaniously (at least in size) otherwise it would make the organisms less fit.

It will be that very rare that both organisms will mutate in a benefical way at the same time near each other.............

No, the bug itself changed. It could not eat nylon: then, suddenly, it could.

I concider it to be micro evolution.
It could eat, and it can still eat.
But I'm afraid we'll never agree on this.

And it is MACRO-evolution, if this is defined as "the addition of new information". The ability did not exist before: mutation created it.

mutation changed it.
the ability to eat was already there.

That would require multiple mutations over a long period of time.

multiple single-mutations ?
Or multiple multiple-mutations ?
Mamals, ie. are complex organisms.
I agree with you that multi-mutations (several gens mutate at the same reproduction) could (rationally) result in new functionalities.

But those multi-mutations would be that very rare that it can never explain the big ammount of different lifeforms on this planet. We need billions and billions and billions times billions .... billions...... billions of reproductions to get that many benefical mutations. 3 billions of years can't clarify it.

I'm not arguing with you that it is possible, I believe it rationally is possible, but I argue with you that it's possible in such a relative small period.

CyberShy

[SpencerH]

I'm not sure why you seem to be hung up on this "one mutation thing". Although there is a greater likelyhood of an effect, one gene mutation will not necessarily have any different effect on the survival of an organism than 1000 gene mutations. It depends on the selective pressure and the nature of the genes that are changed.

[Robert]

It depends on the selective pressure and the nature of the genes that are changed.

of course that's true, but I don't see how that affect the arguments I gave.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Any eye that will send information without any transmit functionalitly will make the organism less fit.
Any transport functionality (nerves) will make the organism less fit if there's no information to transport
Any brain that will be able to receive and compute information but that will not receive any, will make the body less fit.

Whether a gene mutation has positive, negative, or no effect depends on the selective pressure. A single gene duplication, for example, can have no effect in one niche where there are abundant nutritional resources but be detrimental in another niche where there are limited nutritional resources.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by CyberShy
of course that's true, but I don't see how that affect the arguments I gave.

Well you seem to be mis-using the concept in your arguments.

[Jack the Bodiless]

You don't answer the question.
I agree with all you said before. The simplistic examples you come with are true, but don't cover the question.

The point is that at one moment in time simultanious mutations must have happened to:
- make the 'eye' send information
- make nerves to transmit this information
- make the 'brains' ready to receive information
- make the brain able to compute this information

Even plants have "eyes" (they can sense and respond to light). But they don't have nerves or brains. So all you need is the "sending of information" (an accidental photochemical reaction) and the response (initially random). A single mutation could cause the production of a spasm-inducing chemical.

Jack: A half-finished tendency to reproduce sexually (probably beginning with an accidental transfer of DNA) would confer an advantage.

Again an answer that doesn't cover the question.
Of course there are exmples of half-finished reproduction methods that do actually benefit, but how do you explain that the ability for the 'mother' to be able to wear a 'baby' could benefit if it's not ready yet ?

Huh? The ability to have babies would already be there, from the earliest life! Of course the mother would be "ready". Furthermore, with even microbes exchanging DNA, the cellular machinery for incorporating DNA into the egg during fertilization would exist also.

Jack: Whoa there. Sexual reproduction evolved in aquatic organisms. They don't need that sort of equipment: the female lays eggs, the male releases semen into the water. Our own equipment is a later adaptation to the "no water" problem.

We're not talking about aquatic organisms, of course those work that way, but at one moment in time 'our' sexual organs must have evolved. And the male and female organs must have evolved simultaniously (at least in size) otherwise it would make the organisms less fit.

If we're talking about the evolution of sex: then, yes, we ARE talking about aquatic organisms. If you're now talking about sexual intercourse, that's a separate issue: amphibians reproducing in smaller and smaller puddles, then in damp moss, then bringing their genital regions into contact, then gradually developing genital shapes that make the transfer more reliable.

As for why they fit: at any given time, there would be a pair of "average" shapes that usually fit, and those that differ too much from the average would fail to reproduce. Gradually, the average would move in a direction which ensures more reliable transfer of semen. Preferential natural selection of the best shapes for the task.

multiple single-mutations ?
Or multiple multiple-mutations ?
Mamals, ie. are complex organisms.
I agree with you that multi-mutations (several gens mutate at the same reproduction) could (rationally) result in new functionalities.

But those multi-mutations would be that very rare that it can never explain the big ammount of different lifeforms on this planet. We need billions and billions and billions times billions .... billions...... billions of reproductions to get that many benefical mutations. 3 billions of years can't clarify it.

I'm not arguing with you that it is possible, I believe it rationally is possible, but I argue with you that it's possible in such a relative small period.

No, multiple mutations one at a time. And there are many mutations. The average human has about six new mutations in coding (non-junk) DNA. With the Earth's current population of 6 billion, that's 36 billion new mutations in each generation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The point is that at one moment in time simultanious mutations must have happened to:
- make the 'eye' send information
- make nerves to transmit this information
- make the 'brains' ready to receive information
- make the brain able to compute this information

Are you pushing at the sort of "irreducible complexity" that Michael Behe advocated?

Here is some reading for you on how eyes could evolve: one, two, three

The one big question for creationist is, if the human eye was designed, why is the retina backwards? [See article 3 above for more details]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Thus 4 mutations are needed at one moment in time simultaniously, because that's the way OUR eye works. The system our body uses must have mutated / evolved one day.

Why is that? There is no reason why multiple steps cannot be taken. After all, a "half-eye" beats being blind.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I could write down an enormous reply to all of your arguments,
but sine that would be more or less a big waste of time, I'll reduce it to a few simple questions:

Well then you could try thinking of how things can work instead of trying to say they can't on the grounds that nobody knows everything. That wouldn't be a waste of time.

- Jack, will you ever going to answer my last few questions about the eye-mutations ?

He did. Perhaps you weren't clear in your questions.

- Can anybody give a simple step-by-step explanation about how the 2 sexes evolved

Jack did a good job allready on this question. You simply need to study some genetics.

- Vacuum Fluctuations....... someone dropped (must have been Zu again) don't just mention it, explain it. (briefly, if you won't spend much time)

Its quantum mechanics concept. No one wants to look like an idiot on it in front of Rogan.

(how can vacuum fluctuations happen if there's no vacuum ? is just a simple question you could answer as well)

A vacuum is not needed actually needed. There is always a vacuum for that matter when its a subatomic thing. Well maybe not in a nuetron star.

All that is needed is the physics not the specific universe we live in.

- We've been through many micro-evolution examples so far. (animals changing color and all that kind of degenaration. Now come with some macro-evolution examples) (NEW functionalities, not mutated functionalities)

Flying squirel. All functionalities are mutated. You have a really strange idea of evolution functions. I think everything you ever learned about evolution you learned from a creationist.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But you agree with me it's more than one mutation ?
Even more than 3 mutations, to get an as simple as possible working eye that won't make the organism 'less fit' ? (and for that reason die out)

You seem to claiming the mutations must all come at the same time and even in the same individual. Thats not the way it works. One at a time. Each one that survives is one that make the carrier MORE fit not less. If they were less fit they wouldn't survive.

That's a true thing,
but it doesn't answer how it evolved into that.
Nobody believes that the mamal-way of reproducing could be the result of one random mutation.

Nor has anyone claimed that except perhaps a creationist.

Of course in theory it could be possible that any organism would reproduce by 'DNA exchange' or whatever way, while evolving sexual organs.

Yes. If a DNA exchange is helpfull that mechanisms that enhance the exchange would be advantagous. Even if only by a small amount. Variation in DNA makes a species resistant to viral attacks. This is suspected tobe one of the primary things that drove sexual reproduction. Clonal species are easy marks for a virus or even a bacteria.

But that means that any organism at any given time had two kinds of reproduction methods, with one of these two being unfinished.

They are always finished. There is no complete version nor an incomplete version. Only whatever works right now. You are acting as if there is some kind of need to fit to a plan. There is no long term plan.

That's against 'the survival of the fittests' unless any half-finished reproduction method would give any benefits to the organism.

Not half finished. That is pretending there is a target. There is no target except survival.

There a things YOU might call half finished though. An echnidna is an egg laying mammal. Unlike the other egg laying mammal (the duck bill platypus) the echidna has what might be a proto pouch. So there is another species you can pretend it transitional. No species is actually transitional yet all species are in changing. Some are not changing in obvious ways but even sharks and cockroaches must change or the microbes will kill them all because they definitly change over generations.

Later in the process, male and female have to evolve, seperate to each other. Since nobody believes that spontaneously the male and female got one big mutation that resulted in the sexual organs we have right now.

Male and female in many species have little genetic difference. In fact female is the default. Even in humans. If a someone with that has an X and Y chromosome has a mutation that makes them insenstive to testerone they mature to look like a women. They aren't of course because humans unlike say frogs have specialized sex chromosomes.

Some species even change sex. Sexual reproduction came first. Sexual specialization into male and female came second.

Any penis would make any organism less fit if there's no vagina it could fit in. Just to state it easily.

A little at a time. The vagina existed first. That obvious. Fish don't have a penis but they do have an ovitract.

The penis and the vagine must have evolved simultaniously.

Not true. See above. The vagina is a modified ovitract.

You are doing your usual thing. We don't know everything therefor evolution isn't real.

How could this EVER have evolved by accident ?

Nothing evolves by accident. Only the mutations are random.

A simple step-by-step way is impossible. A simplified working mamal-reproduction system will always be either not working and for that reason make the mamal less fit, or........ well, there is no 'or' option.

Of course its possible. However most of the details are in the soft tissue so we are going to have to very lucky to get a fossil that shows the early stages.

First you have an egg layer. One develops mamaries. Primitive ones of course. This makes it possible for eggs to to less of the work. One animal developed a protopouch and we can see this in the echnidna. Now that there is a pouch the egg is needed less. Eventually the embryo simply no longer needs a shell and is born live and moves to the pouch.

Your basis in your claims that things cannot happen seem strongly based on a lack of thought about how they could have happened.

[QUOTE]
correct me if I'm wrong (and it's very obvious that it's wrong)
nylon bugs eath nylon, right ?[QUOTE]

Yes.

The bug itself did not change, the food it eats changed.

]

The microbe changed. You evading mightaly but the microbe still changed. It had to change or it could not have changed its food to such an extent. Cosuming nylon is not exactly like switching from beef to chicken.

Like we humans didn't eat macdonalds hamburgers in the past.
Eating is not a new functionality. It's the same functionality, but only modified to be able to consume nylon.
Still a great example of micro evolution, that's a sure thing.

Guess what? There is no inate difference between micro and macro evolution. You have barrier that exists soley in your lack of imagination. More like a denial that you can use your mind to think about how things can happen.

A new evolved organ will always be more than a mutation.
For sure if the 'old' organ still exists.

This seems confused. An organ that has adapted to a new function while a copy of the original still does the old function is indeed a new organ.

[VictorB212]

All you Evolutionists, you might see me rebut a creationist.

Cybershy, I have a feeling you need to re-examine the current theory of Evolution. You are assuming that an advanced organ or capability is useless until it is fully developed. Evolutionists will claim that it was useful enough each step of the way to keep giving that organism an advantage, or at least not a disadvantage (Jack, correct me if I'm wrong).

It seems that one of the fundamental points of disagreement here is on micro vs. macro evolution. Another that I did not intend to go into very much detail was that of "transitional" fossils.

Our debate will have to "devolve" into one of definitions that are useful to both ID'ers and Evolutionists. Some of you claim that I keep changing my definition, but what I have a feeling is happening is that you are misinterpreting what I have meant. I can sort of see why some laws are so drawn out that they cannot possibly be misinterpreted. Hopefully that extreme will not have to be reached.

A few words that need to be defined are Evolution (which I usually consider as from abiogenesis to today), micro and macroevolution, transitional (I'm not sure if this one is useful at the moment), New Information. Any others?

I've gotta go.

[Grandpa Troll]

Ok, Im 43, or will be on 6/13/2002. That being said, I was not formed at the beginning of creation (Although in the 1970's I did think the world revolved around me! ) but that was pre-acceptance of Christ as my Savior. I dont wanna argue, simply state that creation has to be considered in the text of Faith, as in the Biblical definition in Hebrews 11:1 "Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for and things yet unseen" I can only say that Evolotionists and Creations( I am a Christian and believe that God's inspired word, not Utah's Mormon slanderous recanting, but the Greek and Hebrew Text) haave a short expanse of 18" between them, that 18" is the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge, Christians know by Faith what God did, evololutionsists know by a collection of facts that they feel are rational, which brings us to a simple choice,

Are you willing to wager Eternity on a group of folks called scientists or evolotionists whom discount our Father In Heaven?

I pray you pick God and his Son Jesus!

If so, C U N Eternity!

Troll