Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why Is A Fly Not A Horse?

Rate this topic


Muhammed Ali

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

The book is written by the Italian professor in genetics, Giuseppe Sermonti. The following is a review of the book from Amazon.com. There are some really interesting points being made, some that I haven't seen before.

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/0963865471/

==========================================

This is a good popular work that focuses on the more interesting/less talked about side of the debate. Dr. Sermonti, a famous and well-respected geneticist, speaks with much eloquence about the anomalies in nature that throw a monkey-wrench into Darwin's theory. However, he's not a creationist; rather, it seems that he takes more of a Platonist's view of biological organisms.

Such topics include:

A. The fact that organisms with varying complexity do not have proportional genome sizes. If neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (NDET from now on) were true, shouldn't mammals have more DNA than amphibians, mollusks, or flowering plants? You would think so if NDET were true and an increase in DNA meant an increase in complexity, but you'd be wrong. They vary *widely*.

B. The sudden appearance and stasis of species in the fossil record. Though this is frequently discussed in other books in the origins debate, it is always good to throw it in.

C. How some animals seem not to be fitted for their environment, but rather, they seem to be works of art. As Sermonti put it: "In fish the colors can be bright and resplendent, even among species that never see the light of upper regions, but their patterning bears no relationship to internal structure; the colors just seem to be put there like paints on an artist's palette" (p.58). There are other things mentioned such as the beautiful mathematical shape of the mollusk's shell and the innate knowledge of some birds to know their bird-song without being taught it.

D. The fact that the same genes (such as hox genes) can create different structures in different animals. For instance, a cat's "eye" genes that are transferred to a blind fly's egg will create the multi-faceted eyes in a fly.

E. The ever-changing family tree of hominids.

F. The ever-increasing anomalies in molecular phylogenies. In fact, according to the molecular data, the mysterious "common ancestor" of chimps and humans should actually be much more closely related to man!

G. How the cell somehow innately knows how to make a certain enzyme even though most of the DNA molecule that codes for it is incomplete.

H. One of the more important ones in his book: the fact that the some of the biggest differences in body structure and function are not due to genes.

I. Homologies in unrelated species such as the mammalian eye and the eye of the octopus. Do Darwinists really expect us to believe that these very similar structures converged through evolution by chance?!?

J. The fact that protein folding occurs without instruction. This is very important since "the spatial information necessary for specifying the three-dimensional structure of a protein is vastly greater than the information contained in the sequence" (p.130).

K. Probably the most interesting one is the fact that some mimicking insects appear in the fossil record many of millions of years before the plants upon which they are supposed to mimic appear! Also, there are some insects whose mouths are made to eat a certain plant that also appears many millions of years before the plant they are supposed to eat appears. Any attempt to account for this in neo-Darwinian terms is absurd!

It is most certainly time for science to throw neo-Darwinism into the trash-bin of failed theories.

I gave the book only four stars for two reasons. First, although he is a great writer and is very eloquent, there were times when I felt that he would write a couple paragraphs just for the sake of being eloquent without any topic in mind. Second, he tries to say that Judges 14:8 in the Bible would lead one to believe in spontaneous generation. However, when you read the passage, all it says is that a swarm of bees had taken up residence in a lion's carcass. On the other hand, Sermonti is (or, perhaps, was) a Roman Catholic layman. So, I guess he's excused for not knowing the first thing about Biblical exegesis.

Overall, a very good and interesting book.

===============================================

Point C is one that really interests me. Why did our appreciation of beauty and art evolve? Can something so complex be an accident of a blind undirected process?

Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

As far as your question with letter C.

This seems like something you would be familiar with.

"Why did our appreciation of beauty and art evolve?"

The real question would be, why wouldnt our appreciation of beauty and art evolve? What is beautiful?

Lets say I am in a jungle. And on my right I see a pile of leaves with some mangled bones and a half eaten animal within it.

Then I turn to my left, and I see a large grass field, with, lets say beautiful trees and vibrant colored plants.

In todays time, we would view the magestic, beautiful field as more attractive, and we would go there. If we went to the pile of leaves, we would come to find that it was a tigers home, and we would be eaten.

So, beauty guides us. It hasnt always, but that is why we have it. It is like hunger, or a sex drive. It guides us to things we appreciate and want, things that allow us to thrive.

So, this is why beauty exists through evolutionary terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I suppose ill go ahead and hop on the other bold letters here.

A.

Why would anyone believe that the amount of DNA we have, somehow equates to the complexity of an organism? If I have a mutation that deletes a portion of my genome, and ultimately helps me survive, I according to evolutionary theory, could be a superior organism with less DNA. A whale is not the smartest animal in the world just because it has a big brain. It has to do with efficiency and use of the brain, as does complexity, with efficiency and use of DNA.

and K.

I would have to see his evidence for this one. I do have experience with the fossil record, some involving plant and invertebrate evolution. Id be quite skeptical of his claim, especially seeing as how he is a geneticist and not a paleontologist. He probably wouldnt be able to discern one insect from another, nor one plant from another, nor where such organisms would be located, nor the time or likelyhood of their entry into existence through evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And just a few other things I suppose I'll comment on while I am here.

B. The sudden appearance and stasis of organisms within the fossil record. This is, this is a fair point against darwinian evolutionary models. Between punctuated equilibrium and gradual changes, nobody can really be sure which evolutionary model is more accurate.

I personally believe it is a mix between the two models.

D, E and F, id need more information. These do not seem like issues.

G. Not familiar with the material.

H. Everything morphological is dictated by our genes. I am not sure where anyone would get off saying that theyre not.

I. This is actually a really cool topic. For example, how could sharks and whales develop fins, when one is a fish while the other a mammal. I think that is a very interesting topic, however, I dont think necesserily negates darwinian evolution. Thats a very subjective argument. It could hold relation to something that demonstrates mutations that are not purely random, or it could insinuate that natural selection is not the only guiding process, but i doubt the author offers any ideas to the contrary. He probably just puts the idea out there and then dissapears without offering any better alternative. Which isnt exactly the best position for this topic.

J. Not familiar with the material.

I imagine its an interesting book. Ill keep an ear out for this authors name. Its always nice to keep up to date with ID commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

So, this is why beauty exists through evolutionary terms.

Our appreciation of art and beauty is far more profound than just being a means to detect environmental benefit and harm. Take the examples of music and poetry. Are they just by products of blind evolutionary processes?

Even if we only focus on natural beauty, we would find examples that don't necessarily have any selective advantage. Why do I find a solar eclipse and the sight of a tornado beautiful?

Above all why are these feelings expressed as 'feelings' of beauty?

Why would anyone believe that the amount of DNA we have, somehow equates to the complexity of an organism? If I have a mutation that deletes a portion of my genome, and ultimately helps me survive, I according to evolutionary theory, could be a superior organism with less DNA. A whale is not the smartest animal in the world just because it has a big brain. It has to do with efficiency and use of the brain, as does complexity, with efficiency and use of DNA.

The amount of code does not necessarily mean that the program is more efficient or complex. That is a fair point. A computer programmer can write a simple program with lots of useless code. However it would seem that a more complex system would require more code. I have to be honest, I haven't read the book and it would be good to see his whole argument instead of that 2nd hand summary.

I however would argue the following: If we were to accept common descent then would it not be sensible to somewhat expect the size of the genome to grow at the higher levels of taxonomy? Would you not expect the creatures that resemble the older ones (and also the creatures that have not changed in tens/hundreds of millions of years) to have less DNA?

If I have a mutation that deletes a portion of my genome, and ultimately helps me survive, I according to evolutionary theory, could be a superior organism with less DNA.

Having a limited selective advantage in relation to the environment does not mean that the organism is more complex or advanced.

B. The sudden appearance and stasis of organisms within the fossil record. This is, this is a fair point against darwinian evolutionary models. Between punctuated equilibrium and gradual changes, nobody can really be sure which evolutionary model is more accurate.

I personally believe it is a mix between the two models.

Punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism (it is rapid gradualism) and its proponents believe that it would be carried out using neo-Darwinian mechanics. It is even more mathematically improbable than the traditional model. If it was true then would we not see at least some fossil evidence for it? The evidence would point more towards some from of saltation.

Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Talking about beauty have a look at the following. At 2:51 he asks the right question, "why?!".

They say it's down to sexual selection, and we can't deny the existence of sexual selection just like we can't deny natural selection (neither of them create irreducibly complex systems). However why did sexual selection have to be exhibited in such complex ways and how did it happen? Why couldn't the female just look at the male's normal survival capabilities when choosing a mate?

Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Our appreciation of art and beauty is far more profound than just being a means to detect environmental benefit and harm. Take the examples of music and poetry. Are they just by products of blind evolutionary processes?

I dont believe evolution is blind, but yes, I believe theyre products of the process. This reminds me of a show I once saw. These scientists took a jellyfish and put it near a light that would vary in color. When they had green light shining on the jellyfish, it would become relaxed. When they shined ultraviolet light on it, it would freak out.

The green representing a color reflected by a sort of algae or something along those lines, while ultraviolet, the rays of the sun. A jellyfish has no brain, but given something as simple as varying colors, the Jellyfish comes to find itself either relaxed, or uptight. Because of the simplicity of a jellyfish, it couldnt call something beauty, however, this shows us that, organisms will enately react to certain environments. The green color representing an environment in which the jellyfish will live. Whereas the other, where rays will destroy it.

Anyway, Beauty is a word we have created, to explain how we feel when we are exposed to a certain environment. Of course, looking at a beautiful sun set is a bit more complex than a jelly fish relaxing in green light, but we humans are a lot more complex than a jellyfish too.

Even if we only focus on natural beauty, we would find examples that don't necessarily have any selective advantage. Why do I find a solar eclipse and the sight of a tornado beautiful?

Above all why are these feelings expressed as 'feelings' of beauty?

The amount of code does not necessarily mean that the program is more efficient or complex. That is a fair point. A computer programmer can write a simple program with lots of useless code. However it would seem that a more complex system would require more code. I have to be honest, I haven't read the book and it would be good to see his whole argument instead of that 2nd hand summary.

I however would argue the following: If we were to accept common descent then would it not be sensible to somewhat expect the size of the genome to grow at the higher levels of taxonomy? Would you not expect the creatures that resemble the older ones (and also the creatures that have not changed in tens/hundreds of millions of years) to have less DNA?

Having a limited selective advantage in relation to the environment does not mean that the organism is more complex or advanced.

Punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism (it is rapid gradualism) and its proponents believe that it would be carried out using neo-Darwinian mechanics. It is even more mathematically improbable than the traditional model. If it was true then would we not see at least some fossil evidence for it? The evidence would point more towards some from of saltation.

I agree with your statement about the code. So yes, it is hard to really understand the persons argument simply from a brief statement.

Um...In my personal opinion, I think DNA mutation, how it occurs and what it creates, is...its complex enough that I wouldnt want to assume that more complex organisms would have a greater amount of DNA. I hope that helps present my position.

We know that deletions occur within DNA sequences, and in doing such, lead to better adapted organisms. So, because we know this occurs, it is hard for me to assume that advanced organisms would have more DNA. And really, I think humanity is a great species, we are absolutely amazing. However, other animals are very complex too. Even though mammals may have evolved from reptiles, mammals may contain mammalian DNA that is unique to us, but....yea. DNA and mutation and evolution is extensively complex. I cant speak for other people, but I wouldnt make the assumption that it appears the author may be making. That is just my opinion.

I imagine there is more to the authors argument though, again it is a bit difficult with just a brief statement. So, i will leave it at that.

And I agree with your statement "Having a limited selective advantage in relation to the environment does not mean that the organism is more complex or advanced.".

and as for your last statement. I believe we do see evidence for punctuated equilibrium. This is why we can make the argument that its model is more accurate than gradualist supporters model.

However, the whole gradualism/PE debacle ultimately comes down to geologic principals, rather than biological. I am in the most sincere way, curious about your comment about saltation. If you are relating it to preservation, I am not sure how you are making the relation, or exactly what you are trying to say.

And, I dont mind discussing the fossil record as well, if you are interested.

thank you,

Oh, and as far as your video in your next post goes. I am currently on a newer computer that lacks some sort of needed plug in for me to view it. If you have an address, I will have a look. Ill see if i can find the right software in the mean time.

Just based on your comment though. You said "why couldnt X just look at Y's basic survival capabilities". Well, to "look" implies to "see". If an organism X sees 2 Ys', and they both appear to be equal in basic survival capabilities, then what?

I think we should be asking, why not? rather than why. In society amongst us today. Why not go to a job interview looking good? Why wouldnt a supervisor just hire someone based on their work capabilities?

Well, realistically, a supervisor cant judge work capabilities without a lot of time and dedication. So, looking good provides its advantages to those who use quick judgement.

I just made all that up off the top of my head. For every organism, beauty and attraction may come from different sources, but it isnt too difficult for us to see why beauty would be important to our survival. So I would ask, why not be beautiful?

Edited by DistortedOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

and as for your last statement. I believe we do see evidence for punctuated equilibrium. This is why we can make the argument that its model is more accurate than gradualist supporters model.

However, the whole gradualism/PE debacle ultimately comes down to geologic principals, rather than biological. I am in the most sincere way, curious about your comment about saltation. If you are relating it to preservation, I am not sure how you are making the relation, or exactly what you are trying to say.

To see evidence for PE we would have to see gradual changes in the fossil record happening very rapidly (resulting in macroevolution) and there is no such evidence for it. It could be argued that the fossil record is more strongly against phyletic gradualism but this is no reason to put PE forward as the best alternative since PE is mathematically much more unlikely. If PE were true then would there not be a reasonable possibility that we would see it happening in the modern age?

I am agnostic towards macroevolution. In my humble opinion the only evidence for it is the fact that more complex organisms came into existence after the simpler ones. I cannot accept the neo-Darwinian model since it seems unable to produce irreducible complexity. The only alternative is saltation. A theist may believe that God divinely intervened in the history of the Earth to produce these creatures, either via saltation or by some other means whereby they just popped into existence (and that is why we have no sequences in the fossil record). I prefer saltation and think it may not have been a case of divine intervention but rather that saltation is in the teleology of this natural system, similar to how the universe has been fine-tuned to produce carbon from three helium nuclei: http://www.cosmosmag...e.com/node/1479

We know that deletions occur within DNA sequences, and in doing such, lead to better adapted organisms. So, because we know this occurs, it is hard for me to assume that advanced organisms would have more DNA. And really, I think humanity is a great species, we are absolutely amazing. However, other animals are very complex too. Even though mammals may have evolved from reptiles, mammals may contain mammalian DNA that is unique to us, but....yea. DNA and mutation and evolution is extensively complex. I cant speak for other people, but I wouldnt make the assumption that it appears the author may be making. That is just my opinion.

I don't think much evolutionary advancement at all can be gained from DNA deletion. A more complex system would no doubt in general require more code, however it is possible for a simpler system to have more code, as it has been mentioned earlier this could be due to the inclusion of useless or inefficient code. However I don't disagree with your assertion that other organisms are indeed complex and they may be more complex than what we may perceive them to be, and their extra code may serve a good purpose. One way that extra code can be created is through duplication and this may build up through the generations and it may serve some sort of purpose. I think we have to see what the author's argument is.

Just based on your comment though. You said "why couldnt X just look at Y's basic survival capabilities". Well, to "look" implies to "see". If an organism X sees 2 Ys', and they both appear to be equal in basic survival capabilities, then what?

I think we should be asking, why not? rather than why. In society amongst us today. Why not go to a job interview looking good? Why wouldnt a supervisor just hire someone based on their work capabilities?

Well, realistically, a supervisor cant judge work capabilities without a lot of time and dedication. So, looking good provides its advantages to those who use quick judgement.

This is the video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YTR21os8gTA

No doubt sexual selection has its uses but the question 'why?' is raised within the context of neo-Darwinian evolution. Why did this system choose such a long winded and evolutionary complex method for mates to select each other when more simpler methods were available? As a theist, I would say that this is God indicating and expressing his own capabilities and beauty.

Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To see evidence for PE we would have to see gradual changes in the fossil record happening very rapidly (resulting in macroevolution) and there is no such evidence for it. It could be argued that the fossil record is more strongly against phyletic gradualism but this is no reason to put PE forward as the best alternative since PE is mathematically much more unlikely. If PE were true then would there not be a reasonable possibility that we would see it happening in the modern age?

We do see gradual changes happening very rapidly. If you would like, you should specify what you mean by gradual changes, and specify what you mean by rapidly. Would we see jumps in evolution occurring in todays time if PE were true? It again depends on what kinds of changes you are thinking of, and what kind of time frame you have in mind.

No doubt sexual selection has its uses but the question 'why?' is raised within the context of neo-Darwinian evolution. Why did this system choose such a long winded and evolutionary complex method for mates to select each other when more simpler methods were available? As a theist, I would say that this is God indicating and expressing his own capabilities and beauty.

Im not sure if youre talking about reproduction, or beauty now, but beauty doesnt seem too complex. Considering how organisms evolve as a whole, If a fish can develop legs and turn into a dinosaur, I dont think it is too far off to believe that a bird could develop colorful feathers.

Edited by DistortedOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

We do see gradual changes happening very rapidly. If you would like, you should specify what you mean by gradual changes, and specify what you mean by rapidly. Would we see jumps in evolution occurring in todays time if PE were true? It again depends on what kinds of changes you are thinking of, and what kind of time frame you have in mind.

Brother the onus is on the person making the existential claim. Give me an example of PE in action and then, God willing, I will give you my comments.

Im not sure if youre talking about reproduction, or beauty now, but beauty doesnt seem too complex. Considering how organisms evolve as a whole, If a fish can develop legs and turn into a dinosaur, I dont think it is too far off to believe that a bird could develop colorful feathers.

Well I don't believe that fish did develop legs and turn into dinosaurs (although I don't reject that it could have happened through divinely planned saltation), so that analogy cannot be used to sway me. Leave aside the sort of complex beauty shown in that video, I think sexual reproduction is irreducibly complex in itself.

Edited by Muhammed Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Brother the onus is on the person making the existential claim. Give me an example of PE in action and then, God willing, I will give you my comments.

Well I don't believe that fish did develop legs and turn into dinosaurs (although I don't reject that it could have happened through divinely planned saltation), so that analogy cannot be used to sway me. Leave aside the sort of complex beauty shown in that video, I think sexual reproduction is irreducibly complex in itself.

Ok, Messohippus to miohippus. Ancestors of these have fossils found to demonstrate gradual changes, whereas miohippus came about abruptly.

I think you doubt the capabilities of what makes you human.

As soon as I figure out how to use my computer, ill gladly dig up and paste info if youre interested in particular details.

Thank God! This shafty computer is so poorly designed with pdfs, I have to work through 3rd party groups

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=horse%20evolution%20pdf&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrew.cmu.edu%2Fuser%2Fjksadegh%2FA%2520Good%2520Atheist%2520Secularist%2520Skeptical%2520Book%2520Collection%2FHorse%2520Evolution%2520-%2520Kathleen%2520Hunt%2520-%2520secure.pdf&ei=HtrkULDQF8rt0gHNt4DoDA&usg=AFQjCNEiy75hf0GYBWGDE8eKcdreuml9UQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=looked%20nothing%20at%20all%20like%20a%20horse.%20it%20had%20a%20%22doggish%22%20look%20with%20an%20arched%20back%2C%20short%20neck%2C%20short%20snout%2C&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fneopetsandstuff.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FThe%2Bevolution%2Bof%2Bthe%2BHorse.ppt&ei=kNrkUPreJs2n0AHo9oHgDg&usg=AFQjCNEHM38hsfhkAG__V2ogollLiKDH1g&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ

Edited by DistortedOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I made a little chart, but i dont know how to transfer it onto this website.

Basically though, if you follow the list below. What we find is a gradual progression of fossils transitioning through time. Until we arrive at mesohippus. Mesohippus and miohippus split into a number of species amongst themselves, and exist at, in practical terms, the same time. Mesohippus goes on to become extinct while miohippus just kind of hangs around for several of million years. Then abruptly miohippus provides a lineage for the last three there on my list who, again are around at essentially the same time.

So the progression grades, jumps and stalls. In some cases supporting gradualism, while others give the appearance of being more of a PE position.

Hyocotherium

orohippus

epihippus

mesohippus

miohippus

archihippus

hypohippus

megahippus

Edited by DistortedOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as your question with letter C.

This seems like something you would be familiar with.

"Why did our appreciation of beauty and art evolve?"

The real question would be, why wouldnt our appreciation of beauty and art evolve? What is beautiful?

Lets say I am in a jungle. And on my right I see a pile of leaves with some mangled bones and a half eaten animal within it.

Then I turn to my left, and I see a large grass field, with, lets say beautiful trees and vibrant colored plants.

In todays time, we would view the magestic, beautiful field as more attractive, and we would go there. If we went to the pile of leaves, we would come to find that it was a tigers home, and we would be eaten.

So, beauty guides us. It hasnt always, but that is why we have it. It is like hunger, or a sex drive. It guides us to things we appreciate and want, things that allow us to thrive.

So, this is why beauty exists through evolutionary terms.

Your theory is weak at best,so according to you,beauty of nature evolved from the need of survival? Which protein codes for love of beauty of nature?

There is no attribute in nature which works as a natural selection tool that preserves mutations that cause love for that attribute of nature in the manifestation of beauty nor is there such a protein.

We do see gradual changes happening very rapidly. If you would like, you should specify what you mean by gradual changes, and specify what you mean by rapidly. Would we see jumps in evolution occurring in todays time if PE were true? It again depends on what kinds of changes you are thinking of, and what kind of time frame you have in mind.

No you don't,you have never seen such a thing. The only reason you believe that is because someone told you,give me some examples of "jumps" of evolution that doesn't evolve corruption of function.

You can't because they haven't found one yet.

If you can post the medical journal.

Im not sure if youre talking about reproduction, or beauty now, but beauty doesnt seem too complex. Considering how organisms evolve as a whole, If a fish can develop legs and turn into a dinosaur, I dont think it is too far off to believe that a bird could develop colorful feathers.

You honestly want us to believe that random mutations filtered our by natural selection caused a fish to grow feet and become dinosaurs?

Do you have any idea how many evolutionists are now abandoning the random mutation + natural selection model,I don't have an exact number but I can tell you that it isn't pretty.

Proteins are very fragile the slightest change could cause the entire protein to be thermodynamically unstable and cause it to unfold completely.

Anyway, Beauty is a word we have created, to explain how we feel when we are exposed to a certain environment. Of course, looking at a beautiful sun set is a bit more complex than a jelly fish relaxing in green light, but we humans are a lot more complex than a jellyfish too.

There is no protein or biological cause for beauty of the sunset.

I agree with your statement about the code. So yes, it is hard to really understand the persons argument simply from a brief statement.

Um...In my personal opinion, I think DNA mutation, how it occurs and what it creates, is...its complex enough that I wouldnt want to assume that more complex organisms would have a greater amount of DNA. I hope that helps present my position.

We know that deletions occur within DNA sequences, and in doing such, lead to better adapted organisms.

This is wrong.

Deletion in DNA sequences do not cause benefits to an organism,most of the time it causes harm.

Can you give me an example of a new function arising from a deletion?

So because we know this occurs, it is hard for me to assume that advanced organisms would have more DNA.

Actually he is absolutely right,we should have more DNA.

The reason being is that if we have evolved anatomically,we would not discard out past genes,they would actually be changed and lengthened.

And really, I think humanity is a great species, we are absolutely amazing. However, other animals are very complex too. Even though mammals may have evolved from reptiles, mammals may contain mammalian DNA that is unique to us, but....yea.

These "reptillian" genes are actually fully functional and a part of the species of mammals.

can you give us an example of reptilian genes found in a mammal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Your theory is weak at best,so according to you,beauty of nature evolved from the need of survival? Which protein codes for love of beauty of nature?

Beauty, is just a word we use to define how we react to certain environments. No single protein creates a feeling of emotion. Many are needed, just as many molecules are needed to create a human body. Just as a jelly fish reacts to its environment, we do the same (of course on a more grand scale). Or like the example with the tigers den. What is more beautiful, an open field of beautiful trees, or a pit with dead antelopes in it? There is a reason the beautiful field full of trees is appealing (we wont get eaten by a tiger if we go there). We may even find some nice fruit up in the trees using our color vision.

No you don't,you have never seen such a thing. The only reason you believe that is because someone told you,give me some examples of "jumps" of evolution that doesn't evolve corruption of function.

You can't because they haven't found one yet.

If you can post the medical journal.

Ive already posted above, my example of fossils that we may use to define PE.

You honestly want us to believe that random mutations filtered our by natural selection caused a fish to grow feet and become dinosaurs?

Did I ever say that all mutations were random? I may have, but I do not think I did. Also, even creationists like Michael Behe support common descent from an ape like ancestor through some means of evolution. Be it guideded or not.

It is one thing to not be ok with the idea of random, gradual, "neo-darwinian evolution", while still being open to evolution. It is another to believe that, no form of common descent has occurred at all, in any way.

There are few who do not accept a common ancestor amongst living organisms today (that is to say, there are few who doubt that we have come from primitive apes (for starters)). I am not even sure if either you, or Muhammad, or really anyone who actually discusses this topic on this website, actually believes that we arent descended from primitive apes.

And with that, the question becomes, how did we come to evolve from reptiles and fish and primitive apes. The question is no longer, whether or not it did happen.

If you do happen to believe that all living things just spawned from the earth 6k years ago, then I will probably be on my way.

Deletion in DNA sequences do not cause benefits to an organism,most of the time it causes harm.

Can you give me an example of a new function arising from a deletion?

I like how you said "most" of the time it causes harm. As if you are also saying, sometimes, maybe even if it is just rarely, deletions in DNA sequences benefit organisms. And with that, you have already lost. And yes, Nylonase.

Actually he is absolutely right,we should have more DNA.

The reason being is that if we have evolved anatomically,we would not discard out past genes,they would actually be changed and lengthened.

I disagree with the man in the book.

Here is a simple comparison. Back 30 years ago, we had records. Big floppy, inneficient records. Now, with a microchip 3 microns long, we can hold more information than a record ever could. This isnt a question of quantity, its a question of quality.

And, this concept really has nothing to do with evolution vs creation either. It is just common sense. This being aside from our knowledge of how DNA can increase or decrease throughout time within organisms, without necesserily turning them into super complex animals, or destroying them.

These "reptillian" genes are actually fully functional and a part of the species of mammals.

can you give us an example of reptilian genes found in a mammal?

The genes of our ancestors, be them fish, amphibians, or reptiles etc, as per the theory, are in some cases utilized, while in other cases do not appear to be. For example, genes once used by fish for scales, are now used in people for hair development. The person in the book Ali mentioned, brought this idea up, the claim of people evolving from fish, which predate reptiles.

Edited by DistortedOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...