Why are creationists so against evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2015, 06:29 PM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2015 07:37 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 09:44 PM)RDK Wrote:  Without the understanding of systems, you can not ever hope to make sense of the puzzle of creation. There can be no accident whatsoever for the cell to improve without some outside help. All of the cells parts serve together in harmony to provide a suitable environment for life. There are no extra parts hanging around in there that have nothing better to do than wait for more parts to come along so that this creature can evolve. Each individual part of a cell has its unique work to do, and they can't survive at all without the help of the other parts.
If the engine in your car was missing just one important part, you would never have a vehicle which could drive. Likewise, a cell needs all of the parts there working together to support each other to make a life. This is a system, all parts integrated to communicate, exchange gasses and fluids, create an energy source, store the information about all of this ability, and, reproduce itself within a shell which must interact with the outside world for locomotion, feeding, and elimination.
These are the simplest things that a cell needs to do to live. Can you imagine all of the molecular activity which has to organize ITSELF just to make all of those aforementioned parts to do their job? You are asking for thoughtless atoms to organize together just to make something successful. What are these self replicating atoms.? Do molecules of anything really know how to form something at all? There is no need to answer this.
A system needs organization and planning to become what it is, and it can't happen by accident. Just as many chance occurrences toward the construction of something, can just as often result in its total destruction.

You struggle with the concept of the sheer numbers involved with chance and circumstance don't you? Do you know what the odds are for example that a planet would have the right recipe for life to exist? Well apparently at LEAST 1 in 400 billion. 400+ billion is the number of stars/planets the Hubble telescope can see. I like those odds....now I know you think the super genie in the sky who resides in the never never land of transcendental dimension created these 400 billion+ stars/planets until he got one juuuuuuuuuuuust right, then grabbed a handful of dirt and blew into it creating MAN, but that doesnt seem like a very effective system, nor plausible. If he did, I wonder why we have vestigial organs and bone formations which point back to our evolutionary crawl from another form over a long period of time? Consider

I feel generous today, lets have a school call on evolution since it is obvious your education in that field is lacking....

The homology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between all living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor

In response, evolutionists say that these organs are not "homologous" (in other words, from a common ancestor), but that they are "analogous" (very similar to each other, although there is no evolutionary connection between them). For example, in their view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs. However, the question of which category they will put an organ into, homologous or analogous, is answered totally in line with the theory of evolution's preconceptions. And this shows that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific. The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary preconception.

However, the interpretation they put forward is completely invalid. Because organs which they have to consider "analogous" sometimes bear such close resemblance to one another, despite being exceedingly complex structures, that it is totally inconsistent to propose that this similarity was brought about thanks to coincidental mutations. If an octopus eye emerged completely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim, then how is it that vertebrates' eyes can emerge by the very same coincidences? (Ref A)

Homology, in biology, similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor. Homology is contrasted with analogy, which is a functional similarity of structure based not upon common evolutionary origins but upon mere similarity of use. Thus the forelimbs of such widely differing mammals as humans, bats, and deer are homologous; the form of construction and the number of bones in these varying limbs are practically identical, and represent adaptive modifications of the forelimb structure of their common early mammalian ancestors. Analogous structures, on the other hand, can be represented by the wings of birds and of insects; the structures are used for flight in both types of organisms, but they have no common ancestral origin at the beginning of their evolutionary development. A 19th-century British biologist, Sir Richard Owen, was the first to define both homology and analogy in precise terms.

When two or more organs or structures are basically similar to each other in construction but are modified to perform different functions, they are said to be serially homologous. An example of this is a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper. Both originated in the forelimbs of early mammalian ancestors, but they have undergone different evolutionary modification to perform the radically different tasks of flying and swimming, respectively. Sometimes it is unclear whether similarities in structure in different organisms are analogous or homologous. An example of this is the wings of bats and birds. These structures are homologous in that they are in both cases modifications of the forelimb bone structure of early reptiles. But birds’ wings differ from those of bats in the number of digits and in having feathers for flight while bats have none. And most importantly, the power of flight arose independently in these two different classes of vertebrates; in birds while they were evolving from early reptiles, and in bats after their mammalian ancestors had already completely differentiated from reptiles. Thus, the wings of bats and birds can be viewed as analogous rather than homologous upon a more rigorous scrutiny of their morphological differences and evolutionary origins. (Ref B)

Now let’s dive a bit deeper into the genetic makeup of living organisms. One of the most exciting findings of the past decade has been the existence not only of homologous regulatory genes, but also of homologous signal transduction pathways. They are composed of homologous proteins arranged in a homologous manner. In this respect, the homology is similar to that of a human forearm and a seal flipper. The parts—the proteins—are homologous, and the structures they make up-the pathways—are homologous.

Homologous pathways form the basic infrastructure of development. The targets of these pathways may differ, however, among organisms. For example, the Dorsal-Cactus pathway used in Drosophila for specifying dorsal-ventral polarity is also used by the mammalian immune system to activate inflammatory proteins. This does not mean that the Drosophila blastoderm is homologous to the human macrophage. It merely means that there is a very ancient pathway that predates the deuterostome-protostome split, and that this pathway can be used in different systems. The pathways (one in Drosophila, one in humans) are homologous; the organs they form are not.

Another ancient pathway is the RTK pathway. In Drosophila, the determination of photoreceptor 7 is accomplished when the Sevenless protein (on the presumptive photoreceptor 7) binds to the Bride of sevenless (Boss) protein on photoreceptor 8. This interaction activates the receptor tyrosine kinase of the Sevenless protein to phosphorylate itself. The Drk protein then binds to these newly phosphorylated tyrosines through its Src-homology-2 (SH2) region and activates the Son of sevenless (SOS) protein. This protein is a guanosine nucleotide exchanger and exchanges GDP for GTP on the Ras1 G protein. This activates the G protein, enabling it to transmit its signal to the nucleus through the MAP kinase cascade (Figure 22.12). This same system has been found to be involved in the determination of the nematode vulva, the mammalian epidermis, and the Drosophila terminal segments.

The similarity in these systems is so striking that many of the components are interchangeable between species. The gene for human GRB2 can correct the phenotypic defects of sem-5-deficient nematodes, and the nematode SEM-5 protein can bind to the phosphorylated form of the human EGF receptor (Stern et al. 1993). Thus, in the ectoderm of one organism, the RTK pathway may activate the genes responsible for proliferation. But in another organism, the same pathway may activate the genes responsible for making a photoreceptor. And in a third organism, the pathway activates the genes needed to construct a vulva. (Ref C)

So in summary, from an uneducated in biology perspective, it sounds like complete voodoo science to posit that we all are derived from an evolutionary tree that branched off through time and formed very dissimilar life forms, but when you look deeply into our biological and genetic makeup, we are all made up of the same general pathways. This suggests that the evolutionary theory is correct and supports homology.


References:

Ref A – Retrieved from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_...gy_01.html

Ref B – Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...7/homology

Ref C – Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10092/

[Image: f4qj9u.jpg]

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
05-07-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 06:19 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Try again, on the quoting.

But I think I got the part you intended. No, I'm not looking at complex, modern-type replicators. Not at all. I'm talking about the blind processes which came up, randomly, or based on conditions at the source, which came up with the first, simple replicator(s). The rest is just a matter of adding new information, just as randomly, once the initial replication process began.

From the brief summary article I linked at the JPL website:

(quote) " Two papers published recently in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B provide more detail on the chemical and precursor metabolic reactions that have to take place to pave the pathway for life. Russell and his co-authors describe how the interactions between the earliest oceans and alkaline hydrothermal fluids likely produced acetate (comparable to vinegar). The acetate is a product of methane and hydrogen from the alkaline hydrothermal vents and carbon dioxide dissolved in the surrounding ocean. Once this early chemical pathway was forged, acetate could become the basis of other biological molecules. They also describe how two kinds of "nano-engines" that create organic carbon and polymers -- energy currency of the first cells -- could have been assembled from inorganic minerals.

A paper published in the journal Biochimica et Biophysica Acta analyzes the structural similarity between the most ancient enzymes of life and minerals precipitated at these alkaline vents, an indication that the first life didn't have to invent its first catalysts and engines." (endquote)
Maybe I should jump ahead a little and examine just one animal which is seeking to replicate itself. This creature has been reproducing itself for ever, but decides to involve a mate to complete the deed. Where does this ever complicated female come from? She has to have all of the needed parts to accept all of the complicated male parts in order to procreate.

Remember, this process has never happened before, so all of the male parts have to fit the female parts have to fit, and provide a place for the new creature in a new environment which hasn't even been invented yet.
A failure in just one of these multiple pathways leads to nothing.
These odds against this even getting this far are stacked up so far against you that it should be considered impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
Sorry if I sound like I'm being harsh, RDK. I'm really not. But I suspect you're not being completely honest in holding up your side of this discussion.

If you're genuinely curious to know what the state of thought of this issue is, here are 3 simple articles to get you started. This is way way way WAY too complex for me to teach you a couple years' worth of chemistry just to answer what you seem (claim?) to think is a "simple" question.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerhead_ribozyme

When you have finished reading (really reading, not skimming for quotes to mine and throw at me in the hope that I haven't read the very next paragraph following the quote you tossed my way like a round of machinegun ammo) those articles, we can talk about this again. That is, if you are honest about it. There really is much to discuss on this subject, but not if we have to start with such basic misunderstandings about chemistry like pretending we don't know how molecules stick together without a directing intelligence.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
05-07-2015, 06:38 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 06:33 PM)RDK Wrote:  Maybe I should jump ahead a little and examine just one animal which is seeking to replicate itself. This creature has been reproducing itself for ever, but decides to involve a mate to complete the deed. Where does this ever complicated female come from? She has to have all of the needed parts to accept all of the complicated male parts in order to procreate.

Remember, this process has never happened before, so all of the male parts have to fit the female parts have to fit, and provide a place for the new creature in a new environment which hasn't even been invented yet.
A failure in just one of these multiple pathways leads to nothing.
These odds against this even getting this far are stacked up so far against you that it should be considered impossible.

Again I say: WHAT?!?

That's not remotely how anyone on this planet (except, apparently, you) thinks it happened. At least learn what the arguments ARE before you start to "counter" them!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
You get sexual reproduction even in unicellular organisms. Individual bacteria merge, exchange genetic material, and divide to produce new bacteria with different genetic makeup from either parent.

So the sex organs are just a multicellular organism's way of doing the same thing. The first multicellular organisms (like the slime molds) did sex the old-fashioned way: some of its cells would meet up with some cells of another member of its sex, fuse, and divide.

The next step after the primitive multicellular organisms is when cells begin to develop specialized functions. (This is where the old saw "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" comes in; the ancient organisms I'm talking about were similar to a human embryo where it starts to have "inside" cells and "outside" cells.) One of those specialized functions is gametes, special cells with just half of the genetic complement.

Nobody knows which organisms first developed gametes (this is all long, long before anything left fossils) but it's a relatively simple mutation that prevents polyploidy. In other words, you fuse gametes together and get one full genetic complement and you don't have to weed out duplicates or deal with an exponentially increasing genetic load.

Meiosis is such a simple mutation that some creatures had probably been producing gametes for a while before they figured out how to use them for sex. Probably one organism began producing gametes which fused with a somatic cell to reproduce. That saved its "father" a huge amount of work; it could produce twice as many offspring for the same energy. So that was selected for, and eventually everybody was producing gametes and fusing them to other gametes.

The idea of "male" and "female" organisms came even later than that, when gestation became long enough that one of the parents had to provide extra energy. One organism found that its offspring did better if it made its gametes with an extra blob of protein and sugar which the developing cells could eat. That was successful enough that it became the first female creature.

That evolutionary step probably happened more than once, in different kingdoms (plants, animals, yeasts), because having exactly two genders with one producing few slow gametes and the other producing many fast gametes is such a good idea.

Sexual organs came only long, long after that. In plants, the differing sexual organs didn't actually have to touch each other, so they evolved more or less in isolation as the wind or insects carried the gametes to meet each other.

In vertebrates, many species don't need compatible organs, either. Many fish just spray eggs into the water, and a male comes by later and sprays sperm among them. Birds have an all-purpose "cloaca", and transfer gametes in a somewhat messy fashion.

But the penis and vagina idea is good enough that it happened at least twice, once among the mammals and one among the insects. (Insect penises are unrelated to mammal penises, an example of convergent evolution.) In vertebrates, the penis is a modification of the cloaca: male instances of the species found that they could reproduce more effectively with a bulge in the cloaca to deposit sperm closer to the ovaries.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
05-07-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 06:33 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 06:19 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Try again, on the quoting.

But I think I got the part you intended. No, I'm not looking at complex, modern-type replicators. Not at all. I'm talking about the blind processes which came up, randomly, or based on conditions at the source, which came up with the first, simple replicator(s). The rest is just a matter of adding new information, just as randomly, once the initial replication process began.

From the brief summary article I linked at the JPL website:

(quote) " Two papers published recently in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B provide more detail on the chemical and precursor metabolic reactions that have to take place to pave the pathway for life. Russell and his co-authors describe how the interactions between the earliest oceans and alkaline hydrothermal fluids likely produced acetate (comparable to vinegar). The acetate is a product of methane and hydrogen from the alkaline hydrothermal vents and carbon dioxide dissolved in the surrounding ocean. Once this early chemical pathway was forged, acetate could become the basis of other biological molecules. They also describe how two kinds of "nano-engines" that create organic carbon and polymers -- energy currency of the first cells -- could have been assembled from inorganic minerals.

A paper published in the journal Biochimica et Biophysica Acta analyzes the structural similarity between the most ancient enzymes of life and minerals precipitated at these alkaline vents, an indication that the first life didn't have to invent its first catalysts and engines." (endquote)
Maybe I should jump ahead a little and examine just one animal which is seeking to replicate itself. This creature has been reproducing itself for ever, but decides to involve a mate to complete the deed. Where does this ever complicated female come from? She has to have all of the needed parts to accept all of the complicated male parts in order to procreate.

Remember, this process has never happened before, so all of the male parts have to fit the female parts have to fit, and provide a place for the new creature in a new environment which hasn't even been invented yet.
A failure in just one of these multiple pathways leads to nothing.
These odds against this even getting this far are stacked up so far against you that it should be considered impossible.

At work.

Simply?

No, the above post is just wrong. Totally wrong and I am sure people will be along to explain why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 06:29 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 09:44 PM)RDK Wrote:  Without the understanding of systems, you can not ever hope to make sense of the puzzle of creation. There can be no accident whatsoever for the cell to improve without some outside help. All of the cells parts serve together in harmony to provide a suitable environment for life. There are no extra parts hanging around in there that have nothing better to do than wait for more parts to come along so that this creature can evolve. Each individual part of a cell has its unique work to do, and they can't survive at all without the help of the other parts.
If the engine in your car was missing just one important part, you would never have a vehicle which could drive. Likewise, a cell needs all of the parts there working together to support each other to make a life. This is a system, all parts integrated to communicate, exchange gasses and fluids, create an energy source, store the information about all of this ability, and, reproduce itself within a shell which must interact with the outside world for locomotion, feeding, and elimination.
These are the simplest things that a cell needs to do to live. Can you imagine all of the molecular activity which has to organize ITSELF just to make all of those aforementioned parts to do their job? You are asking for thoughtless atoms to organize together just to make something successful. What are these self replicating atoms.? Do molecules of anything really know how to form something at all? There is no need to answer this.
A system needs organization and planning to become what it is, and it can't happen by accident. Just as many chance occurrences toward the construction of something, can just as often result in its total destruction.

You struggle with the concept of the sheer numbers involved with chance and circumstance don't you? Do you know what the odds are for example that a planet would have the right recipe for life to exist? Well apparently at LEAST 1 in 400 billion. 400 billion is the number of planets the Hubble telescope can see. I like those odds....now I know you think the super genie in the sky who resides in the never never land of transcendental dimension created these 400 billion+ planets until he got one juuuuuuuuuuuust right, then grabbed a handful of dirt and blew into it creating MAN, but that doesnt seem like a very effective system, nor plausible. If he did, I wonder why we have vestigial organs and bone formations which point back to our evolutionary crawl from another form over a long period of time? Consider

I feel generous today, lets have a school call on evolution since it is obvious your education in that field is lacking....

The homology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between all living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor

In response, evolutionists say that these organs are not "homologous" (in other words, from a common ancestor), but that they are "analogous" (very similar to each other, although there is no evolutionary connection between them). For example, in their view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs. However, the question of which category they will put an organ into, homologous or analogous, is answered totally in line with the theory of evolution's preconceptions. And this shows that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific. The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary preconception.

However, the interpretation they put forward is completely invalid. Because organs which they have to consider "analogous" sometimes bear such close resemblance to one another, despite being exceedingly complex structures, that it is totally inconsistent to propose that this similarity was brought about thanks to coincidental mutations. If an octopus eye emerged completely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim, then how is it that vertebrates' eyes can emerge by the very same coincidences? (Ref A)

Homology, in biology, similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor. Homology is contrasted with analogy, which is a functional similarity of structure based not upon common evolutionary origins but upon mere similarity of use. Thus the forelimbs of such widely differing mammals as humans, bats, and deer are homologous; the form of construction and the number of bones in these varying limbs are practically identical, and represent adaptive modifications of the forelimb structure of their common early mammalian ancestors. Analogous structures, on the other hand, can be represented by the wings of birds and of insects; the structures are used for flight in both types of organisms, but they have no common ancestral origin at the beginning of their evolutionary development. A 19th-century British biologist, Sir Richard Owen, was the first to define both homology and analogy in precise terms.

When two or more organs or structures are basically similar to each other in construction but are modified to perform different functions, they are said to be serially homologous. An example of this is a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper. Both originated in the forelimbs of early mammalian ancestors, but they have undergone different evolutionary modification to perform the radically different tasks of flying and swimming, respectively. Sometimes it is unclear whether similarities in structure in different organisms are analogous or homologous. An example of this is the wings of bats and birds. These structures are homologous in that they are in both cases modifications of the forelimb bone structure of early reptiles. But birds’ wings differ from those of bats in the number of digits and in having feathers for flight while bats have none. And most importantly, the power of flight arose independently in these two different classes of vertebrates; in birds while they were evolving from early reptiles, and in bats after their mammalian ancestors had already completely differentiated from reptiles. Thus, the wings of bats and birds can be viewed as analogous rather than homologous upon a more rigorous scrutiny of their morphological differences and evolutionary origins. (Ref B)

Now let’s dive a bit deeper into the genetic makeup of living organisms. One of the most exciting findings of the past decade has been the existence not only of homologous regulatory genes, but also of homologous signal transduction pathways. They are composed of homologous proteins arranged in a homologous manner. In this respect, the homology is similar to that of a human forearm and a seal flipper. The parts—the proteins—are homologous, and the structures they make up-the pathways—are homologous.

Homologous pathways form the basic infrastructure of development. The targets of these pathways may differ, however, among organisms. For example, the Dorsal-Cactus pathway used in Drosophila for specifying dorsal-ventral polarity is also used by the mammalian immune system to activate inflammatory proteins. This does not mean that the Drosophila blastoderm is homologous to the human macrophage. It merely means that there is a very ancient pathway that predates the deuterostome-protostome split, and that this pathway can be used in different systems. The pathways (one in Drosophila, one in humans) are homologous; the organs they form are not.

Another ancient pathway is the RTK pathway. In Drosophila, the determination of photoreceptor 7 is accomplished when the Sevenless protein (on the presumptive photoreceptor 7) binds to the Bride of sevenless (Boss) protein on photoreceptor 8. This interaction activates the receptor tyrosine kinase of the Sevenless protein to phosphorylate itself. The Drk protein then binds to these newly phosphorylated tyrosines through its Src-homology-2 (SH2) region and activates the Son of sevenless (SOS) protein. This protein is a guanosine nucleotide exchanger and exchanges GDP for GTP on the Ras1 G protein. This activates the G protein, enabling it to transmit its signal to the nucleus through the MAP kinase cascade (Figure 22.12). This same system has been found to be involved in the determination of the nematode vulva, the mammalian epidermis, and the Drosophila terminal segments.

The similarity in these systems is so striking that many of the components are interchangeable between species. The gene for human GRB2 can correct the phenotypic defects of sem-5-deficient nematodes, and the nematode SEM-5 protein can bind to the phosphorylated form of the human EGF receptor (Stern et al. 1993). Thus, in the ectoderm of one organism, the RTK pathway may activate the genes responsible for proliferation. But in another organism, the same pathway may activate the genes responsible for making a photoreceptor. And in a third organism, the pathway activates the genes needed to construct a vulva. (Ref C)

So in summary, from an uneducated in biology perspective, it sounds like complete voodoo science to posit that we all are derived from an evolutionary tree that branched off through time and formed very dissimilar life forms, but when you look deeply into our biological and genetic makeup, we are all made up of the same general pathways. This suggests that the evolutionary theory is correct and supports homology.


References:

Ref A – Retrieved from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_...gy_01.html

Ref B – Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...7/homology

Ref C – Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10092/

[Image: f4qj9u.jpg]
Simple concepts do not need to be so wordy. Sure you can show the relationships between creatures that have similar parts, but you have to add that this is how it all started. Principles don't change from the start.

Animals can have amazing similarities in their structures, but it has to be assumed that there can be anything deeper than this. We are all made of the same stuff, so, of course, you will see similarities. But non of this proves that the starting of life happened this way at all

I brought up the (SYSTEMS) argument at the beginning to prove that an organism will only live if all of it's component parts are assembled at the same moment for life to take hold. Systems must be designed. If a much needed part is not included, there IS NO LIFE!

Watching advanced forms replicate after all of this got started has not been explained from the very earliest start of life. That jump of reasoning makes no sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:51 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
GwoG - An excellent, relatively succinct explanation of the evolution(s) of sex. I can never quite find that fine line between overly-complex "layman's explanations" and simply summing up every single element in an attempt to keep the page-length and complexity to a minimum until I am *certain* I am not wasting my time on things that my opponent will not even read.

Well done, though! Smile

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
05-07-2015, 06:55 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
[Image: double-facepalm1.jpg]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand while I typed that, he ignored or mis-stated every single thing you said, without apparently reading it too closely. Perhaps the "slime molds" timeline was confused with later, complex organisms with penises and vaginas. I am not sure they grasp just how many generations we're talking about before creatures that needed no body structures of any real sort to begin reproducing sexually, or how little actual structure it takes to have definitively "male" and "female" animals (other than, perhaps the minimal complexity you call "inside-cells and outside-cells"), long before anything came along the layperson would call an "animal". I think it's time to call RDK a dishonest internet troll, and cease providing any explanations at all until he/she demonstrates having read the things linked to, and actually understood the arguments made so far.

Clearly, that has not yet occurred. It's okay, RDK, we'll wait.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2015 07:04 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(05-07-2015 06:48 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 06:29 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You struggle with the concept of the sheer numbers involved with chance and circumstance don't you? Do you know what the odds are for example that a planet would have the right recipe for life to exist? Well apparently at LEAST 1 in 400 billion. 400 billion is the number of planets the Hubble telescope can see. I like those odds....now I know you think the super genie in the sky who resides in the never never land of transcendental dimension created these 400 billion+ planets until he got one juuuuuuuuuuuust right, then grabbed a handful of dirt and blew into it creating MAN, but that doesnt seem like a very effective system, nor plausible. If he did, I wonder why we have vestigial organs and bone formations which point back to our evolutionary crawl from another form over a long period of time? Consider

I feel generous today, lets have a school call on evolution since it is obvious your education in that field is lacking....

The homology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between all living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor

In response, evolutionists say that these organs are not "homologous" (in other words, from a common ancestor), but that they are "analogous" (very similar to each other, although there is no evolutionary connection between them). For example, in their view, the human eye and the octopus eye are analogous organs. However, the question of which category they will put an organ into, homologous or analogous, is answered totally in line with the theory of evolution's preconceptions. And this shows that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific. The only thing evolutionists do is to try to interpret new discoveries in accordance with a dogmatic evolutionary preconception.

However, the interpretation they put forward is completely invalid. Because organs which they have to consider "analogous" sometimes bear such close resemblance to one another, despite being exceedingly complex structures, that it is totally inconsistent to propose that this similarity was brought about thanks to coincidental mutations. If an octopus eye emerged completely by coincidence, as evolutionists claim, then how is it that vertebrates' eyes can emerge by the very same coincidences? (Ref A)

Homology, in biology, similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor. Homology is contrasted with analogy, which is a functional similarity of structure based not upon common evolutionary origins but upon mere similarity of use. Thus the forelimbs of such widely differing mammals as humans, bats, and deer are homologous; the form of construction and the number of bones in these varying limbs are practically identical, and represent adaptive modifications of the forelimb structure of their common early mammalian ancestors. Analogous structures, on the other hand, can be represented by the wings of birds and of insects; the structures are used for flight in both types of organisms, but they have no common ancestral origin at the beginning of their evolutionary development. A 19th-century British biologist, Sir Richard Owen, was the first to define both homology and analogy in precise terms.

When two or more organs or structures are basically similar to each other in construction but are modified to perform different functions, they are said to be serially homologous. An example of this is a bat’s wing and a whale’s flipper. Both originated in the forelimbs of early mammalian ancestors, but they have undergone different evolutionary modification to perform the radically different tasks of flying and swimming, respectively. Sometimes it is unclear whether similarities in structure in different organisms are analogous or homologous. An example of this is the wings of bats and birds. These structures are homologous in that they are in both cases modifications of the forelimb bone structure of early reptiles. But birds’ wings differ from those of bats in the number of digits and in having feathers for flight while bats have none. And most importantly, the power of flight arose independently in these two different classes of vertebrates; in birds while they were evolving from early reptiles, and in bats after their mammalian ancestors had already completely differentiated from reptiles. Thus, the wings of bats and birds can be viewed as analogous rather than homologous upon a more rigorous scrutiny of their morphological differences and evolutionary origins. (Ref B)

Now let’s dive a bit deeper into the genetic makeup of living organisms. One of the most exciting findings of the past decade has been the existence not only of homologous regulatory genes, but also of homologous signal transduction pathways. They are composed of homologous proteins arranged in a homologous manner. In this respect, the homology is similar to that of a human forearm and a seal flipper. The parts—the proteins—are homologous, and the structures they make up-the pathways—are homologous.

Homologous pathways form the basic infrastructure of development. The targets of these pathways may differ, however, among organisms. For example, the Dorsal-Cactus pathway used in Drosophila for specifying dorsal-ventral polarity is also used by the mammalian immune system to activate inflammatory proteins. This does not mean that the Drosophila blastoderm is homologous to the human macrophage. It merely means that there is a very ancient pathway that predates the deuterostome-protostome split, and that this pathway can be used in different systems. The pathways (one in Drosophila, one in humans) are homologous; the organs they form are not.

Another ancient pathway is the RTK pathway. In Drosophila, the determination of photoreceptor 7 is accomplished when the Sevenless protein (on the presumptive photoreceptor 7) binds to the Bride of sevenless (Boss) protein on photoreceptor 8. This interaction activates the receptor tyrosine kinase of the Sevenless protein to phosphorylate itself. The Drk protein then binds to these newly phosphorylated tyrosines through its Src-homology-2 (SH2) region and activates the Son of sevenless (SOS) protein. This protein is a guanosine nucleotide exchanger and exchanges GDP for GTP on the Ras1 G protein. This activates the G protein, enabling it to transmit its signal to the nucleus through the MAP kinase cascade (Figure 22.12). This same system has been found to be involved in the determination of the nematode vulva, the mammalian epidermis, and the Drosophila terminal segments.

The similarity in these systems is so striking that many of the components are interchangeable between species. The gene for human GRB2 can correct the phenotypic defects of sem-5-deficient nematodes, and the nematode SEM-5 protein can bind to the phosphorylated form of the human EGF receptor (Stern et al. 1993). Thus, in the ectoderm of one organism, the RTK pathway may activate the genes responsible for proliferation. But in another organism, the same pathway may activate the genes responsible for making a photoreceptor. And in a third organism, the pathway activates the genes needed to construct a vulva. (Ref C)

So in summary, from an uneducated in biology perspective, it sounds like complete voodoo science to posit that we all are derived from an evolutionary tree that branched off through time and formed very dissimilar life forms, but when you look deeply into our biological and genetic makeup, we are all made up of the same general pathways. This suggests that the evolutionary theory is correct and supports homology.


References:

Ref A – Retrieved from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_...gy_01.html

Ref B – Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...7/homology

Ref C – Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10092/

[Image: f4qj9u.jpg]
Simple concepts do not need to be so wordy. Sure you can show the relationships between creatures that have similar parts, but you have to add that this is how it all started. Principles don't change from the start.

Animals can have amazing similarities in their structures, but it has to be assumed that there can be anything deeper than this. We are all made of the same stuff, so, of course, you will see similarities. But non of this proves that the starting of life happened this way at all

I brought up the (SYSTEMS) argument at the beginning to prove that an organism will only live if all of it's component parts are assembled at the same moment for life to take hold. Systems must be designed. If a much needed part is not included, there IS NO LIFE!

Watching advanced forms replicate after all of this got started has not been explained from the very earliest start of life. That jump of reasoning makes no sense.

One cannot attempt to explain complex things like the fact of evolution in a few words...one can though posit a BS explanation in a few words with zero justification under the "GODDIDIT" assertion. Rolleyes

The point you miss, like so many other creationists is IF there was a designer, there wouldnt be DNA evidence of evolution, there wouldnt be vestigial organs and bone formations within humans and animals that show an evolutionary trail of evidence to older forms, there wouldnt be recessive genes within our DNA that are turned off through evolutionary progress that show we shifted with time....take an evolutionary scxience course, or three, it will be life changing, but you have to remove the blindfold of faith first..

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: