Another good family of related genes to look into in the hemoglobin / myoglobin family. These are oxygen carrying molecules.The evidence is that an original oxygen carrying gene duplicated early in evolution. One duplicate has since duplicated additional times, mutated, and become the myoglobins that carry oxygen withing muscle tissues. The other becamce hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Hemoglobin is further split into two families, the alpha and beta. All of these involve a cluster or family of related genes. Many of these genes are related to development where specific genes are expressed at different points in the life cycle.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
Here is a related topic. It is more subtle but it also provides a strong indication of evolution and would be hard to be explained in a young earth.
I have previously pointed out how certain positions in the three "letter" codons that code for genes have different affects. A change in the first letter makes the largest change whil a change in the last will often result in the same amino acid or a very similar amino acid. Changes in the thrid letter tend to be silent, that is they result in either the same protein or a very simialr one. A prediction that follows from this would be that evolution in silent regions would happen more rapidly that in the other areas. This is because most changes in the third position will be either neutral or close to neutral. Changes in the first postion will result in larger changes in the structure of the protein. Many of these will be harmful and therefore selected against. When we compare actual sequences we find that in almost every case, there are a few exceptions most notably the histocompatibility loci, the silent nucleotides diverge much more quickly. This pattern of divergance fits what we know of evolution very well. How would you explain it in a young earth scenario?
I have previously pointed out how certain positions in the three "letter" codons that code for genes have different affects. A change in the first letter makes the largest change whil a change in the last will often result in the same amino acid or a very similar amino acid. Changes in the thrid letter tend to be silent, that is they result in either the same protein or a very simialr one. A prediction that follows from this would be that evolution in silent regions would happen more rapidly that in the other areas. This is because most changes in the third position will be either neutral or close to neutral. Changes in the first postion will result in larger changes in the structure of the protein. Many of these will be harmful and therefore selected against. When we compare actual sequences we find that in almost every case, there are a few exceptions most notably the histocompatibility loci, the silent nucleotides diverge much more quickly. This pattern of divergance fits what we know of evolution very well. How would you explain it in a young earth scenario?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I don't blame you for wanting to escape the embarassing case that evolutionism faces with the subject of entropy.
Here is more "data" to consider.
(This time from your quote of Asimov - the part you "wont ignore"???)
Your actions show that evolutionist desperate to embrace any-old contradiction with good science in the hopes of salvaging the doctrines of evolutionism cling to another statement of Asimov in the above document.
But here again Asimov holds the line insisting that increasing order in biological systems IS in fact a DECREASE in entropy. How awful for evolutionism’s faithful! This argument was supposed to be for “stupid Christians” – but Asimov will not let it go.
Evolutionist “have been claiming” that only a stupid Christian would say that evolution of biological systems has anything at all to do with entropy.
The “hopeful monster” that Asimov offers to evolutionism’s faithful is that the fact that the sun shines – is “enough” to account for molecule-to-man popping up anywhere in the solar system. His argument is in effect – “all that sun shinning should stop all cars from rusting as a result of entropy for the sun shining MORE than compensates for the decrease in entropy needed to preserve the cars.”
As you have stated well, (the only point you have made that is supportable here) the reader can easily see the problem for evolutionism.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob
I have moved on from the Asimov quote. The readers are free to decide if the rest of the quote changes the meaning or not. I say it does. You, I guess, say that it does not. No one around here is saying the entropy does not apply to biology, but I guess you can keep pretending that someone is.
If you would like to keep going with entropy, then let's get away from a general statement and start applying. I have given you the example above where a single nucleotide is substituded resulting in a new protein. In my example, the substituted amino acid is similar to the previous amino acid, so it is unlikely that the change would be crippling. The new protein would likely do the job slightly better or slightly worse. You job is to show me why the mutation that results in a slight improvement cannot happen but the one that results in a slight decline can. This is the same base being substituted between the the same pair of bases. The chemistry is EXACTLY the same. Well, at least I say so. If it is not, show us in technical terms what is different. I assert that there is absolutely no difference in the chemisrty of the two substitutions. If you disagree, then show us in a factual manner. If you cannot, then I propose that we have seen that there is no difference in harmful and beneficial mutations and you have no point.
Perhaps you would like to move on to a new topic. I have several out there that are unanswered as of yet. I particulatly like the families of gene showing that duplication and mutation can lead to new "information." The difference in how much these genes diverge based on the silent nucleotides sews it up nicely. Or maybe you would like to tackle the retroviral LTRs that I am so fond of. Perhaps there is something else that has come up that you would like to tackle.
But, I am tired of your dishonest use of Asimov. I have pointed out the problems. I have filled in the rest of the quote. The reader can judge. I am not going to make you see the problem and you are not going to convince me that you are making a fact based presentation nor that you understand thermodynamics. I am not going after the Asimov quote. If you want to continue with entropy then apply your knowledge of the subject to an actual problem. I would bet you will continue to hide behind your misquote, however.
I have moved on from the Asimov quote. The readers are free to decide if the rest of the quote changes the meaning or not. I say it does. You, I guess, say that it does not. No one around here is saying the entropy does not apply to biology, but I guess you can keep pretending that someone is.
If you would like to keep going with entropy, then let's get away from a general statement and start applying. I have given you the example above where a single nucleotide is substituded resulting in a new protein. In my example, the substituted amino acid is similar to the previous amino acid, so it is unlikely that the change would be crippling. The new protein would likely do the job slightly better or slightly worse. You job is to show me why the mutation that results in a slight improvement cannot happen but the one that results in a slight decline can. This is the same base being substituted between the the same pair of bases. The chemistry is EXACTLY the same. Well, at least I say so. If it is not, show us in technical terms what is different. I assert that there is absolutely no difference in the chemisrty of the two substitutions. If you disagree, then show us in a factual manner. If you cannot, then I propose that we have seen that there is no difference in harmful and beneficial mutations and you have no point.
Perhaps you would like to move on to a new topic. I have several out there that are unanswered as of yet. I particulatly like the families of gene showing that duplication and mutation can lead to new "information." The difference in how much these genes diverge based on the silent nucleotides sews it up nicely. Or maybe you would like to tackle the retroviral LTRs that I am so fond of. Perhaps there is something else that has come up that you would like to tackle.
But, I am tired of your dishonest use of Asimov. I have pointed out the problems. I have filled in the rest of the quote. The reader can judge. I am not going to make you see the problem and you are not going to convince me that you are making a fact based presentation nor that you understand thermodynamics. I am not going after the Asimov quote. If you want to continue with entropy then apply your knowledge of the subject to an actual problem. I would bet you will continue to hide behind your misquote, however.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I understand why you need to do that. I was just hoping you would note the problem. I was hoping that you would allow yourself to see what he said in "your" quote of him
- I guess not.
Agreed.
My reason for detailing the point here - is that in the case of Asimov the "stupid Christian" argument is obviously denied because he is an atheist evolutionist.
Your quote is actually adding to the argument because in your quote of Asimov - he admits that biological evoution requires a "massive Decrease in entropy" and specifically sites the example of the human brain as requiring a "decrease" in entropy even though he has already admitted that we "observe" an INCREASE in entropy when it comes to biological systems - and that increase results in decay and dissorder in those systems. (And now you seem to be claiming you admit that as well? How interesting.)
This has been the very thing you have been so admant in denying.
Now you simply pretend not to notice those points in his quotes.
I will provide bold typed examples in his quotes (yes - the actual quotes) in that article to illustrate the key points of this form of the argument.
Is this your way of referring to your repeated demand that an explanation be given as to how entropy has any application at all to biology and to evolution - asking for detailed scientific explanation of how such a thing can be stated in terms of thermodynamics? (As an argument against the claim that entropy would need to be found to be decreasing "massively decreasing" in biological systems where evolution is taking place)
Surely you can not pretend that you have not seen your own posts on that point.
Again - do you not see that your argument is of the form "Nothing in the actual process of the evolution of biological systems should be impacted by entropy"? Do you not see that you are asking for the energy equation in entropy to be applied to this example (or denying that it applies). You are claiming in your example that this should not take a "decrease in entropy" for a simple positive variation to occur? I can't believe you don't see the point of your own argument.
Do you not see how Asimov's quote (in this case YOUR quote of Asimov) that this is in fact "a massive decrease in entropy" violates the form of the argument you are making?
It must be apparent to the reader - don't you think?
Is it your argument that when I quote Asimov's exact words - it is a "misquote because it leaves out your quotes of OTHER statements of Asimov" - but when you quote Asimov it is "not a misquote" though it leaves out OTHER statements of Asimov found in my quote of him?
Do you really think that is "objective" critical thinking on your part?
Your approach to the problem of Asimov's confessions about Entropy applied to biological systems has been astounding so far.
In Christ,
Bob
[ June 06, 2004, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The Christian argument:
They argue that a thermodynamic principle should not be claimed for biological systems. (And that Christians are too stupid to understand that).
Asimov’s argument:
3. Hopefully the fact that the sun is shining will provide the balance in entropy needed for such a decrease to ever be found evolving biological system
When they claim (as we have seen UTEOTW do) that such evolution does not require us to find that the evolutionary process requires decrease in entropy (or as Asimov sates – a “Massive decrease in entropy” - they boldly contradict Asimov's quote above (a quote that UTEOTW selected -- so not some stupid Christian YEC guy who could not possibly quote a statement from an article where the quote makes a point favorable to the YEC argument).
In Christ,
Bob
At this point evolutionist begin flailing their arguments against Christians wildly claiming that entropy does not apply to biological systems and especially not to the simple chemical reactions needed for each step of that evolution to take place -- (so it is not increasing there) (so it does not need to be found to be decreasing for evolutionism to be true).
They argue that a thermodynamic principle should not be claimed for biological systems. (And that Christians are too stupid to understand that).
Asimov’s argument:
2. It would take a decrease in entropy for the theory of evolution of those systems to be true. For example, evolution of the human brain would require a decrease in entropy.
3. Hopefully the fact that the sun is shining will provide the balance in entropy needed for such a decrease to ever be found evolving biological system
</font>[/QUOTE]Note that Asimov’s argument embraces the primary observations of the Christian argument that have the evolutionist claiming Christians are too stupid to see that entropy should not be applied to the process of evolution of biological systems.
When they claim (as we have seen UTEOTW do) that such evolution does not require us to find that the evolutionary process requires decrease in entropy (or as Asimov sates – a “Massive decrease in entropy” - they boldly contradict Asimov's quote above (a quote that UTEOTW selected -- so not some stupid Christian YEC guy who could not possibly quote a statement from an article where the quote makes a point favorable to the YEC argument).
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW - my reason for not engaging in the issue of the amount of variation required for evolution to actually happen in real life - is three fold.
#1. Asimov has already made the case for me - and you seem content to ignore his own statements when they do not please evolutionism's dogma. This tactic of yours is extremely helpful for the reader.
#2. You have consistently shown reluctance to embrace a logical argument to the contrary - when it is made by a YEC. I have no reason to believe this point is any different. I therefore need to keep the debate as one between you and Asimov (one with whom you find much more difficulty in framing a I-just-can't-believe-you argument). Obviously he is an atheist evoutionist so you can not "afford" to dispute him - and his statements so directly and effectively refute your salient points on this topic that I simply don't "need" to contrast your views with a YEC statement. Hence a much stronger position to show how your arguments oppose the clear statements of Asimov.
#3. You have adopted an increadibly weak position in the case of your responses to Asimov's statements - by claiming that my large block direct quotes of Asimov (by comparison to your snippets) are in fact misquotes if they do not include the snippet quotes you provide.
The weakness of such a charge is as you say "apparent to the reader" and so it serves my argument to have you explore it in detail.
In Christ,
Bob
#1. Asimov has already made the case for me - and you seem content to ignore his own statements when they do not please evolutionism's dogma. This tactic of yours is extremely helpful for the reader.
#2. You have consistently shown reluctance to embrace a logical argument to the contrary - when it is made by a YEC. I have no reason to believe this point is any different. I therefore need to keep the debate as one between you and Asimov (one with whom you find much more difficulty in framing a I-just-can't-believe-you argument). Obviously he is an atheist evoutionist so you can not "afford" to dispute him - and his statements so directly and effectively refute your salient points on this topic that I simply don't "need" to contrast your views with a YEC statement. Hence a much stronger position to show how your arguments oppose the clear statements of Asimov.
#3. You have adopted an increadibly weak position in the case of your responses to Asimov's statements - by claiming that my large block direct quotes of Asimov (by comparison to your snippets) are in fact misquotes if they do not include the snippet quotes you provide.
The weakness of such a charge is as you say "apparent to the reader" and so it serves my argument to have you explore it in detail.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob
Put your money where your mouth is. If you think entropy is a problem, then show it. Quit hiding behind your general quote. Here is your opportunity. I'll even state it again for you. If entropy applies in such a way that good mutations are not only unlikely but impossible, then show me why. I assert that the chemistry for a good mutation is exactly the same as that of a bad mutation. That you hide behind your out of context quote and refure to address the issue speaks volumes. I have answered all you question multiple times. Not to your satisfaction, I understand, but the lurker should have no trouble seeing that not only have your issues been addressed, they have been refuted. Now, show us how the actual changes are different instead of hiding behind a general statment.
If you would like to keep going with entropy, then let's get away from a general statement and start applying. I have given you the example above where a single nucleotide is substituded resulting in a new protein. In my example, the substituted amino acid is similar to the previous amino acid, so it is unlikely that the change would be crippling. The new protein would likely do the job slightly better or slightly worse. You job is to show me why the mutation that results in a slight improvement cannot happen but the one that results in a slight decline can. This is the same base being substituted between the the same pair of bases. The chemistry is EXACTLY the same. Well, at least I say so. If it is not, show us in technical terms what is different. I assert that there is absolutely no difference in the chemisrty of the two substitutions. If you disagree, then show us in a factual manner. If you cannot, then I propose that we have seen that there is no difference in harmful and beneficial mutations and you have no point.
Put your money where your mouth is. If you think entropy is a problem, then show it. Quit hiding behind your general quote. Here is your opportunity. I'll even state it again for you. If entropy applies in such a way that good mutations are not only unlikely but impossible, then show me why. I assert that the chemistry for a good mutation is exactly the same as that of a bad mutation. That you hide behind your out of context quote and refure to address the issue speaks volumes. I have answered all you question multiple times. Not to your satisfaction, I understand, but the lurker should have no trouble seeing that not only have your issues been addressed, they have been refuted. Now, show us how the actual changes are different instead of hiding behind a general statment.
If you would like to keep going with entropy, then let's get away from a general statement and start applying. I have given you the example above where a single nucleotide is substituded resulting in a new protein. In my example, the substituted amino acid is similar to the previous amino acid, so it is unlikely that the change would be crippling. The new protein would likely do the job slightly better or slightly worse. You job is to show me why the mutation that results in a slight improvement cannot happen but the one that results in a slight decline can. This is the same base being substituted between the the same pair of bases. The chemistry is EXACTLY the same. Well, at least I say so. If it is not, show us in technical terms what is different. I assert that there is absolutely no difference in the chemisrty of the two substitutions. If you disagree, then show us in a factual manner. If you cannot, then I propose that we have seen that there is no difference in harmful and beneficial mutations and you have no point.
I believe I have provided an even better answer to your "problem" in my recent posts. I have actually presented evidence for large groups of genes, with many different functions, arising through the duplication and mutation of the copies. That new functions and traits can arise in such a manner indicates that in practice there is no entropy problem.
In trying to get you to move on to a new subject, how about this related topic. If entropy is a problem, then there should be no transitionals. Yet I posted the following general statement a few pages ago.
"One of the reasons that you should look at the other changes going on with this group of dinosaurs at the same time that feathers developed is because it makes things make more sense. Before this time, dinosaurs were cold blooded. But at the time you see feathers develope, you also see evidence for warm bloodedness in the bones of that group. The fine structure of the bones becomes more like a warmblooded animal and the body style changes to a more active lifestyle. Taken together, feathers were an adaptation for heat conservation. Not only do we not have evidence for feathers before this, the cold blooded animals that came before would have had no need for feathers. "
It show how we have evidence of changes going on in the theropod dinosaurs that eventually led to birds. How did they get these new traits if entropy is a problem?
"One of the reasons that you should look at the other changes going on with this group of dinosaurs at the same time that feathers developed is because it makes things make more sense. Before this time, dinosaurs were cold blooded. But at the time you see feathers develope, you also see evidence for warm bloodedness in the bones of that group. The fine structure of the bones becomes more like a warmblooded animal and the body style changes to a more active lifestyle. Taken together, feathers were an adaptation for heat conservation. Not only do we not have evidence for feathers before this, the cold blooded animals that came before would have had no need for feathers. "
It show how we have evidence of changes going on in the theropod dinosaurs that eventually led to birds. How did they get these new traits if entropy is a problem?
Some more things where I have shown beneficial mutations from the field that are in contrast with your "problem." Here are some genuine beneficial mutations I posted a few pages back. And we're not talking an underground lizard losing his eyes so he does not get them infected.
"There is a mutation found in a particular ethnic group in Africa. From the pattern in which the mutation has spread, it is believed to have happened about 1000 years ago. There is a substitution in a single nucleotide of the gene that makes hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule in the blood, that changes which amino acid is inserted at that spot. The new form is known as hemoglobin C. People with this gene ara about 14 times less likely to die from malaria. Before anyone asks, this is a different mutation than the one that causes sickle cell anemia. Here is an abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11001883&dopt=Abstract
There is a gene, CKR5, in which a mutant version appears in some people of European ancestry. This mutated gene makes it more difficult or impossible for HIV to infect the persons cells, depending on which type of mutation the individual has.
Here is another abstract to a mutation in a plant that offers increased disease resistance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14576290&dopt=Abstract "
"There is a mutation found in a particular ethnic group in Africa. From the pattern in which the mutation has spread, it is believed to have happened about 1000 years ago. There is a substitution in a single nucleotide of the gene that makes hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule in the blood, that changes which amino acid is inserted at that spot. The new form is known as hemoglobin C. People with this gene ara about 14 times less likely to die from malaria. Before anyone asks, this is a different mutation than the one that causes sickle cell anemia. Here is an abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11001883&dopt=Abstract
There is a gene, CKR5, in which a mutant version appears in some people of European ancestry. This mutated gene makes it more difficult or impossible for HIV to infect the persons cells, depending on which type of mutation the individual has.
Here is another abstract to a mutation in a plant that offers increased disease resistance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14576290&dopt=Abstract "
If we do not share an ancestry with the other life on earth, then why do we share traits that make no sense in their current form. I gave you this list a few pages back and you have yet to address it. It also talks at the beginning about more observation from the fossil record of new traits evolving. Once again real life is shown to contradict your entropy assertions.
"But Paul brought up another interesting, and related, topic when he mentioned vestigal parts a few posts ago. Evolution tends to reuse or change existing parts rather than invent from scratch. (Though plenty has been invented from scratch!) Think of birds. They did not sprout wings from nothing and have their existing arms waste away over the eons. No, over time, the arms of the theropod dinosaurs was changed into functioning wings. And not with flight in "mind." It was hunting. The larger theropods, think T. rex, had small arms that do not appear to have been useful for much. But the smaller ones have bone structure that indicates that they were used for grasping prey. And as it turns out, the motion they used for grasping prey, according to the form of the bones, is exactly the same motion used for the powered upstroke of flight. The bone structures, such as the fused clavicle, and muscle structure that was later used in flight, was originally selected for based on a better ability to hunt. Only later was it coopted for flight.
I say all that as an introduction. We can look at the human body and see examples of where function is shared across species. I have been wanting to do this same post looking at how genes are reused for vastly different purposes, but I have not gotten around to it. Physical stuff is easier to see, anyway.
First, the familar. We are all familar with animals puffing up their fur. Cats can do it to make themselves look bigger when frightened. Sometimes you will see animals do it in the cold to puff up the fur for greater warmth. Now look at you own arm the next time you are cold and feel goose bumps coming up. Or when something frightens you with the same reaction. We have hardly any body hair. Raising the hair on end will not keep us warmer nor will it make us look bigger. Yet we retain this function from our harrier past.
Can you wiggle your ears? Why? It has no benefit. At least to us. Our distant ancestors could turn their hears to help them hear better. Watch a dog or cat. (Not that I am saying they are our ancestors!) Some of us have not lost this ability.
Most of us are sitting on our bottoms. These muscles are huge (I think they may be the largest in the body.) and are essential to upright walking like ours. The other apes have the same muscle, but it is much smaller. This is why when you see a chimp ambling around on two legs they have that funny look where their knees are sharply bent with the thigh bones much closer to horizontal than in a human. Humans have devoloped this into a large muscle for walking but it is the same muscle as in the other apes. For that matter, look at the whole subject of upright walking. Our bodies have many problems because the bodies of our ancestors were on all fours. When moved upright, problems insue. Look at how many people have lower back troubles.
While talking about four legged ancestors... There is a muscle, the subclavius, that goes from the first rib to the collarbone. In other animals this muscle is used in moving the front legs for walking. Humans have not completely lost this relic. Some people maintain both of these on each arm, some only one, and some people none. They serve us no purpose.
Another muscle we no longer use is the plantaris muscle. This is used by other primates to grasp with their feet. We have no use for it and it has shrunk to the size of a nerve fiber.
There is a similar muscle in the lower arm called the palmaris. It is used by primates for hanging and climbing. In humans it has no function and is often taken by surgeons in need of a muscle elsewhere for reconstructive surgery."
"But Paul brought up another interesting, and related, topic when he mentioned vestigal parts a few posts ago. Evolution tends to reuse or change existing parts rather than invent from scratch. (Though plenty has been invented from scratch!) Think of birds. They did not sprout wings from nothing and have their existing arms waste away over the eons. No, over time, the arms of the theropod dinosaurs was changed into functioning wings. And not with flight in "mind." It was hunting. The larger theropods, think T. rex, had small arms that do not appear to have been useful for much. But the smaller ones have bone structure that indicates that they were used for grasping prey. And as it turns out, the motion they used for grasping prey, according to the form of the bones, is exactly the same motion used for the powered upstroke of flight. The bone structures, such as the fused clavicle, and muscle structure that was later used in flight, was originally selected for based on a better ability to hunt. Only later was it coopted for flight.
I say all that as an introduction. We can look at the human body and see examples of where function is shared across species. I have been wanting to do this same post looking at how genes are reused for vastly different purposes, but I have not gotten around to it. Physical stuff is easier to see, anyway.
First, the familar. We are all familar with animals puffing up their fur. Cats can do it to make themselves look bigger when frightened. Sometimes you will see animals do it in the cold to puff up the fur for greater warmth. Now look at you own arm the next time you are cold and feel goose bumps coming up. Or when something frightens you with the same reaction. We have hardly any body hair. Raising the hair on end will not keep us warmer nor will it make us look bigger. Yet we retain this function from our harrier past.
Can you wiggle your ears? Why? It has no benefit. At least to us. Our distant ancestors could turn their hears to help them hear better. Watch a dog or cat. (Not that I am saying they are our ancestors!) Some of us have not lost this ability.
Most of us are sitting on our bottoms. These muscles are huge (I think they may be the largest in the body.) and are essential to upright walking like ours. The other apes have the same muscle, but it is much smaller. This is why when you see a chimp ambling around on two legs they have that funny look where their knees are sharply bent with the thigh bones much closer to horizontal than in a human. Humans have devoloped this into a large muscle for walking but it is the same muscle as in the other apes. For that matter, look at the whole subject of upright walking. Our bodies have many problems because the bodies of our ancestors were on all fours. When moved upright, problems insue. Look at how many people have lower back troubles.
While talking about four legged ancestors... There is a muscle, the subclavius, that goes from the first rib to the collarbone. In other animals this muscle is used in moving the front legs for walking. Humans have not completely lost this relic. Some people maintain both of these on each arm, some only one, and some people none. They serve us no purpose.
Another muscle we no longer use is the plantaris muscle. This is used by other primates to grasp with their feet. We have no use for it and it has shrunk to the size of a nerve fiber.
There is a similar muscle in the lower arm called the palmaris. It is used by primates for hanging and climbing. In humans it has no function and is often taken by surgeons in need of a muscle elsewhere for reconstructive surgery."
Here is a detail I posted a few pages back about evidence for yet another new trait seen evolving in contrast to your asertion that it cannot happen. More actaul evidence that contradicts your assertion that you have not even tried to address.
"One nice series of a structure devoloping from nothing is the feather. Sinosauropteryx is the oldest dinosaur found with feathers. The feathers of Sinosauropteryx are very fine and downy. This seems to be the first stage in the evolution of feathers. Protarchaeopteryx is another small dinosaur. It was also covered in feathers similar to Sinosauropteryx, but Protarchaeopteryx had spread of larger fethers on it tail. These feathers were symettrical and therefore not involved for flight. Caudipteryx is another small dinosaur. This time we add symetrical feathers to the forarms in addition to the fan of feathers on the tail. Then we move on to Microraptor. This animal has asymmetrical feathers, those meant for flight, coving both its arms and its legs. It did not have the skeleton for powered flight, but it does have the needed ingredients to be a four winged glider. Then we move on to Confuciusornis which is the oldest dinosaur (or bird if you prefer) with fully devoloped flight feathers and the ability for powered flight. If you go back and look up additional information of these creatures, you will be able to see all the other bodily changes that were happening in concert with the developement of feathers that eventually led to powered flight. But I focused on the feathers since you wanter to see something new develope. If you look into the subject you will also find that they now know which genes regulate the development of feathers."
"One nice series of a structure devoloping from nothing is the feather. Sinosauropteryx is the oldest dinosaur found with feathers. The feathers of Sinosauropteryx are very fine and downy. This seems to be the first stage in the evolution of feathers. Protarchaeopteryx is another small dinosaur. It was also covered in feathers similar to Sinosauropteryx, but Protarchaeopteryx had spread of larger fethers on it tail. These feathers were symettrical and therefore not involved for flight. Caudipteryx is another small dinosaur. This time we add symetrical feathers to the forarms in addition to the fan of feathers on the tail. Then we move on to Microraptor. This animal has asymmetrical feathers, those meant for flight, coving both its arms and its legs. It did not have the skeleton for powered flight, but it does have the needed ingredients to be a four winged glider. Then we move on to Confuciusornis which is the oldest dinosaur (or bird if you prefer) with fully devoloped flight feathers and the ability for powered flight. If you go back and look up additional information of these creatures, you will be able to see all the other bodily changes that were happening in concert with the developement of feathers that eventually led to powered flight. But I focused on the feathers since you wanter to see something new develope. If you look into the subject you will also find that they now know which genes regulate the development of feathers."
Bob
I have now shown you advantageous muations.
I have now shown you strong evidence for the evolution of new proteins through duplication and mutation. (This line also applies heavily to Gup20's assertion that there can never be new information.) With the characteristic that we see more divergence in the "silent" nucleotides added in, this becomes even more powerful.
I have given you the example of a likely mutation and shown that the chemistry for a beneficial mutation is the same as that for a harmful one.
I have shown you evidence for new traits arising in the fossil record.
I have shown you where we have traits that make no sense other than to tie us with the other life through common descent.
In short, I have presented much empirical evidence against your assertion that entropy poses a problem. You have not addressed this data at all. If entropy poses the problem you assert, then I should not be able to show you these diverse pieces of evidence. Would you care to refute them? Or do you still think that your partial quote, the one where you draw a different conclusion than the person who wrote it, shows these things I have listed to be impossible? I believe that I have empiracally shown that you draw the wrong conclusion.
I have now shown you advantageous muations.
I have now shown you strong evidence for the evolution of new proteins through duplication and mutation. (This line also applies heavily to Gup20's assertion that there can never be new information.) With the characteristic that we see more divergence in the "silent" nucleotides added in, this becomes even more powerful.
I have given you the example of a likely mutation and shown that the chemistry for a beneficial mutation is the same as that for a harmful one.
I have shown you evidence for new traits arising in the fossil record.
I have shown you where we have traits that make no sense other than to tie us with the other life through common descent.
In short, I have presented much empirical evidence against your assertion that entropy poses a problem. You have not addressed this data at all. If entropy poses the problem you assert, then I should not be able to show you these diverse pieces of evidence. Would you care to refute them? Or do you still think that your partial quote, the one where you draw a different conclusion than the person who wrote it, shows these things I have listed to be impossible? I believe that I have empiracally shown that you draw the wrong conclusion.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
How is it "not showing your problem" to have it explained clearly from the mouth of atheist evolutionists?
#1. "Even" the Atheist evolutionst admits that entropy DOES apply to biologicaly systems AND that increased entropy IS SEEN in the decay and disorder principle present in those biological systems today.
Christians agree.
#2. "Even" the Atheist evoutionist admits that evolution "requires" a "vast DECREASE in entropy". (See the quote YOU gave).
The "obvious" problem (for those using even a small amount of critical thinking here) is that if we are OBSERVING the increase in entropy in biological systems today - it is IN the context of the sun coming up every day and shining. STILL we are seeing the VERY effects of increase in entropy IN THOSE biological systems that Asimov confesses to seeing.
How then can you speculate a "VAST DECREASE" in entropy that is "needed" according to Asimov for evolution to take place?
Clearly the problem is not sovled for evolutionists by "the sun shining" - since the atheist evoutionist has already admitted that IN THAT context we STILL see increased entropy IN biological systems.
Now I know you are going to respond "as if" you do not get the point that is being made here ... but I appeal to you to consider that such a response does not serve your case.
Better to deal with the details of the point than to simply pretend you did not notice it.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Since you keep ducking the point - I will ask it to you straight - "again" - WHY do you keep responding with and argument of the form "I Don't see why the process of evolution SHOULD require a VAST decrease in entropy"
Answer that question OR address the point by showing how your question above IS NOT an argument questioning "WHY" evolution MUST involve "a VAST decrease in entropy".
Simply address the point and then we can move on with the next part of the discussion.
In fact you have not addressed this point even once. The point remains - that your question above is framed as a challenge to Asimov (and in the case a challenge to YOUR OWN QUOTE of Asimov).
I need you to show "logic and reason" for why you put yourself in the mode of challenting the statements of Asimov that YOU QUOTE.
HE argues that your statement above - applied in succession until a human brain is formed requires "A VAST DECREASE in Entropy". (your quote of Asimov).
You keep arguing that this fact "needs to be explained to you".
I find your approach "instructive" for anyone interested in the flaws of evolutionism.
BTW - I see your need to get away from BOTH your quote AND my quote of Asimov - I just want to know how you can justify your escaping the problem.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
If you would like to keep going with entropy, then let's get away from a general statement and start applying. I have given you the example above where a single nucleotide is substituded resulting in a new protein. In my example, the substituted amino acid is similar to the previous amino acid, so it is unlikely that the change would be crippling. The new protein would likely do the job slightly better or slightly worse. You job is to show me why the mutation that results in a slight improvement cannot happen but the one that results in a slight decline can.[/quote]
#1. Proteins are comprised of a great many amino acid chains - not just one.
#2. The YEC position has never been that minor mutations resulting in proteins or enzymes that activate or deactivate a given gene - can not occur within the complex system that God has designed.
#3. EVEN your own Atheist Evolutionist sources agree that it would require a VAST DECREASE in entropy to accomplish a molecule-to-human-brain sequence of evolutionary steps. And this alone slams the door on your proposed "long sequence of unlikely events".
How fascinating UTEOTW. But it only shows the extent to which you are breaking with critical and objective thinking in your pursuit of the doctrines of evolutionism.
In Christ,
bob
#1. Proteins are comprised of a great many amino acid chains - not just one.
#2. The YEC position has never been that minor mutations resulting in proteins or enzymes that activate or deactivate a given gene - can not occur within the complex system that God has designed.
#3. EVEN your own Atheist Evolutionist sources agree that it would require a VAST DECREASE in entropy to accomplish a molecule-to-human-brain sequence of evolutionary steps. And this alone slams the door on your proposed "long sequence of unlikely events".
I.e. you are "proposing" that you can prove "there is no VAST DECREASE in entropy" needed for the evolution of complex biological systems - no matter what Asimov has stated to the contrary. And what is the form of that "proof"? Why that "mutations of any kind CAN occur at all"!
How fascinating UTEOTW. But it only shows the extent to which you are breaking with critical and objective thinking in your pursuit of the doctrines of evolutionism.
In Christ,
bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. An argument that IF mutation can occur at ALL - then no decrease in entropy is needed OR is it an argument that we see no INCREASE in entropy in the every day function of biological systems "EVEN systems not mutating" as Asimov states it.
#2. An argument that Asimov is incorrect in his statement that " a vast decrease in entropy is needed".
It is interesting that you go this route.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
"New Traits"? As in Wolf becoming poodle?
The YEC position does not require that Wolves can not breed to the point of a "poodle" over time. You will observe "traits" in that same body type as the wolf is bred closer to the goal.
You need to use critical thinking to define your goal and then show that EITHER the observed INCREASE in entropy seen EVEN in biological systems that are not mutating is "False" or showing how a "vast decrease in entropy" is seen in biological systems ALREADY seen to show increased entropy.
Clearly you can not do this - so you are resorting to "yes but mutations can happen in a species" argument.
The problem of a "vast decrease in entropy" remains - because it is "needed" in a system that you already admit to be showing an "INCREASE" in entropy.
In Christ,
Bob