Evolution and Time

[Helen]

Nicely done, Bob. I used to get my science students to learn how to tell fact from opinion in what they were reading by handing them a National Geographic article and asking them to highlight in blue the verified facts, in orange, the opinions, and in pink the presuppositions. Very little blue resulted when they brought back their homework the next day. I didn't need to say much...

NOW, please, how much time for the hip to form on a fish?

 

[amity]

You're right. Thank you. NOW can we get back to time?

I am talking about time. If I understand your original post right, you are saying that in working with a pool of E. coli bacteria over the course of a mere 100 years, we have not come up with anything but E. coli bacteria. I am suggesting that "evolution" can and does occur regularly over the course of a single summer in a much more complex organism: fleas.

The experimenters with E. coli have not been working with a single strain of E. coli and subjecting it to selective pressure in a single 'direction.' Each new experiment has been with a new population of E. coli, and a new selective pressure, right? First we try 'em with x-rays, then throw that batch out and start over again with a new batch and this time subject them to changes in pH. What sort of "evolution" could be expected from that?

 

[UTEOTW]

Thank you, Bob.

Now, UTE, how many mutations and how much TIME to get that hip in a fish? How many generations are needed for this tiny bit of evolution to happen?

What exactly are you thanking him for?

He quotes my abstract where it says that "geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology" all provide evidence for the symbiotic origin of the eukaryotes. And then goes right on as if he did not even read the sentence.

You said that there was "no evidence." The author asserts that these things provide evidence. Alas this is just an abstract but did you and Bob go read his whole paper and and then his references in their entirety?

No?

Yet you dismiss them so quickly! He is the expert in the field. He asserts that these things offer evidence. He got his work past peer review. And yet laypersons posting on a chat board can throw it out the window.

And I only got about 24,000 hits when searching "prokaryotic origin organelles" at PNAS so there are a few more references that can be given. I am sure you could hand wave their findings away as easily as well. (See it is easy to be a YEer. You just ignore everything with which you disagree and then claim that it doesn't exist.)

And your question is doing nothing more than continuing the fallacy from your OP. Again, you can go out and test the genetics of life and see that prokaryotes are far more diverse genetically than even the most distant eukaryotes. How many mutations to get a hip? Don't know.

But you might be careful with that question. We already have the genetic evidence that shows the fish origin of tetrapods. The fossil evidence is coming along very nicely as well. It happened. So what happens if one day genetic testing of extant life becomes widespread enough to actually reconstruct ancient genes and your question is answered? Will you find another place to move your goalposts? Testing is already starting to reassemble individual genes that haven't been seen in millions of years by comparing their modern equivilants in different species.

But, how much time you ask? If I remember correctly, the whole tetrapod transition is found in a spread of only about 10 million years, so less time than that.

 

[BobRyan]

Nicely done, Bob. I used to get my science students to learn how to tell fact from opinion in what they were reading by handing them a National Geographic article and asking them to highlight in blue the verified facts, in orange, the opinions, and in pink the presuppositions. Very little blue resulted when they brought back their homework the next day. I didn't need to say much...

I took a class in ways to identify propaganda - and as it turns out UTEOTW seems to be married to it. Almost everything he posts turns out to be 99% story telling and 1% fact. But as his latest post points out - he can't seem to tell the difference even reading his own posts!

Notice "the inconvenient detail" for him as HE says

UTEOTW
He quotes my abstract where it says that "geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology" all provide evidence for the symbiotic origin of the eukaryotes.

He does not seem to be careful to even quote himself accurately. The article he posted said this -- "by contrast".

Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution

UTEOTW translates "offerred insight" into the idea that they actually PROVIDED EVIDENCE.

But notice that in the article quote HE gives - NO EVIDENCE is provided AT ALL!!

Subtle little inconvenient fact and I am not surprised that it is totally lost on an follower of atheist darwinism - but why does he think we don't see that glaring gap??

NOW, please, how much time for the hip to form on a fish?

Err umm - my answer has always been "impossible". Or in the case of your example impossible-y times 10 raised to the 100th power.

In My book impossible-x 10 is the same a impossible-x a zillion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Haven't read the full text of the paper, eh Bob?

How can you know what details are there until you do? You expect a five page abstract? It is a summary. You have all the information you need to find the paper and read the details.

I guess handwaving is easier. Would it make it harder if I started giving you all of the abstacts on this topic? You did read above where I got 24,000 hits on this subject at PNAS, didn't you? This is not some fringe, tentative idea. The evolution of eukaryotes by the symbiosis of prokaryotes is widely accepted and supported. You know, those "geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology" areas you dismiss.

 

[Helen]

From fish to tetrapod in ten million years? That is truly extraordinary!

A generation time on the average of about one year?

Ten million generations to get from fish to tetrapod.

This requires a change in the entire circulatory system, the nervous system, cartilege to bone, a massive change in the respiratory system, a different digestive system, and even different instincts. And that's just a beginning.

But it took at least 3.5 trillion generations to get from unicellular to multicellular. Then evolution started to move at warp speed, is that what you are claiming?

 

[grahame]

Nicely done, Bob. I used to get my science students to learn how to tell fact from opinion in what they were reading by handing them a National Geographic article and asking them to highlight in blue the verified facts, in orange, the opinions, and in pink the presuppositions. Very little blue resulted when they brought back their homework the next day. I didn't need to say much...

That's a good exercise Bob and Helen. That is if I've understood you folk correctly? It it is amazing how ordinary folk (most people in fact) in the street seem to drink in everything they hear or read just because a "scientist" wrote or said it. I'll have to try that next time I read National Geographic.

 

[Alcott]

However, to limit God to having acted within the confines of one of two literary/oral traditions is a bit short-sighted.

It's an oral tradition that Jesus was divine, lived a sinless life, was sentenced to death, put in a tomb, and resurrected. One-- that's true, 2-- that's not true. It's an oral tradition in that it was not written down (on any records we have) until decades later. And it's not physically possible. Are you a believer in 'supernatural' oral tradition(s) or not?

Paul said it was by one man [not one woman, interestingly] that sin became part of humanity, and then by a new man sin will be atoned for. Paul's writings may not be oral tradition, though this concept he wrote about was, at least according to what you said. Is it true or untrue? If so, who were the 2 men to which he referred? Or were they concepts, not men?

If, in either case, you say they were 'symbolic,'analogous,' 'personified idealism,' then is the gospel message symbolic, analogous, or just idealistic? Where did it come from, and for what purpose?

 

[UTEOTW]

You cannot get away from the fallacy of your OP even though I have shown how it is a strawman compared to what science actually says happened.

You cannot respond to the science that says that eukayotes came from symbiotic prokaryotes. You said no evidence at all. I presented a small sampling of a wide body of evidence. It was hand waved away, and barely even that.

You ignore the implications of the much greater genetic diversity among prokaryotes than eukaryotes. Accumulations of beneficial mutations WAS NOT the limiting factor in getting to complex, multicellular life. It was the two step changes, to eukaryotes and to differentiated cells. Eukaryotes have had little additional genetic innovation compared to the innovation of the prokayotes that preceeded them. But this observation does not fit your strawman, so you ignore it.

The fossil evidnce shows the transition from fish to tertrapod very clearly in a very short period of time. That you, in personal incredulty, try and talk about how short of time that is for so many chances shows that your assertions about time are false. The data is there and is strong for such a change. You merely make a bald assertion based on a fallacy that such is impossible.

Hey kids, if you build enough strawmen, ignore enough data, keep your head in the sand and maintain the cognitive dissonance, you too can be a YEer.

 

[grahame]

I'm not a scientist and a lot of all these high folluting terms go over my head. But I did find this interesting article which seems to throw doubt on what you say about the fossil evidence. Could be wrong though. As I said before I'm not ejumucated like what you folks are.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html

 

[BobRyan]

There is a very insightful point in the conclusion sir

In conclusion, this is a fascinating fossil which I'm sure will stir up much debate. But the next time we dig up some fossil of a fin-bound fish (possibly with a few tetrapod-ish characteristics), we'll hear again all about the previously existing big gaps and how Tiktaalik didn't really teach us much after all--but how the new fossil solves all the problems. That's how it usually works, and that makes me wonder where we're really left today. Anyone who thinks that we've found the "missing link" or clear evidence of an evolutionary transition has either forgotten history, or isn't looking very carefully at the evidence.

The "problems" with the fairy trale junk-science we know today as atheist darwinism - are only "confessed" by the devotees to that religion WHEN they "think they have an improved story" to tell over the old one. Until then they portray the old story as "flawless" and all the problems that are found with it - by those dirty rotten Bible believing Christians - are just so much "inconvenient fact to be ignored by the group".

The dark ages worked that way - but why they still use those methods in an age of enlightenment is beyond me!

What a great link.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Haven't read the full text of the paper, eh Bob?

Nope. As you stated - I read your snippet and then simply observed the obvious - you provided no actual facts.

I then asked the question "IF the article CONTAINED facts why does UTEOTW select out the non-fact story telling piece instead of facts?"

Get it?

How can you know what details are there until you do?

Dodging the point raise UTEOTW?

Hmm - how "unnexpected".

"I guess handwaving is easier" for you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I'm not a scientist and a lot of all these high folluting terms go over my head. But I did find this interesting article which seems to throw doubt on what you say about the fossil evidence. Could be wrong though. As I said before I'm not ejumucated like what you folks are.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html

I am glad that you see that an education is something to be scoffed at.

Could you please explain to me just why it is that I should listen to a lawyer talking about paleontology. This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Do you also get your medical advice from lawyers?

If criticisms such as this had legs, they could get them published. As it is, you are expecting that I should accept the word of a layperson with no expertise in the subject at hand over the opinion of those who have dedicated their lived to learning and researching the subject.

Next.

 

[UTEOTW]

Nope. As you stated - I read your snippet and then simply observed the obvious - you provided no actual facts.

So let's get this right.

You are going to tell me that you, with absolutely no expertice in the area under discussion, can dismiss the content of a paper that you have not read written by an expert in the field and reviewed by other experts in the field.

That is quite amazing. I wish that I could know everything about everything without even having to know anything about it or read anything. Your powers are impressive!

I guess you can also dismiss the thousands of other papers on the subject written by thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to learning and researching this and reviewed by thousands of other such people without having read a single one of them. And without knowing anything about the subject.

The true shallowness of a YE position exposed. Keep those fingers well pushed into your ears lest you accidentally hear anything.

 

[BobRyan]

You cannot respond to the science that says that eukayotes came from symbiotic prokaryotes.

Excuse me sir - JUNK-SCIENCE simply "says" eukaryotes CAME FROM symbiotic prokaryotes.

REAL SCIENCE SHOWS that you CAN NOT get ukaryotes to BECOME symbiotic prokaryotes no matter WHAT you do to artificially force them into it!

You said no evidence at all. I presented a small sampling of

A sample of "hand waving" comprised of story-telling with no actual facts listed???

Yes sir you did -- duly noted. Thank you for providing those stories -- don't know what we would have done without them.

I just can't believe that you truly have no clue as to the difference between a fact and pure story-telling when reading an article. Have you never been taught to think objectively, to read critically, to distinguish fact from handwaiving??

The fact that you pretend not to be able to tell the "red from the blue" as we said earlier -- is astonishing!

You ignore the implications of the much greater genetic diversity among prokaryotes than eukaryotes.

That is like saying "You ignore the story-telling potential in the fact that we have greater diversity among insects than people"!!

No science SHOWS insect collections self-organizing into a human. Junk-science TELLS STORIES about interesting artifact like observing the greater diversity among insects and then imagining the story telling potential of linking those facts in some imaginative and creative way.

No science SHOWS a "special collection" of prokaryotes self-organizing into uekaryotes and no REAL science has even been able to MANIPULATE them artificially into doing such a thing. But JUNK-SCIENCE will "say it" about the untestable past - it will "tell a story" without having any ACTUAL science to support the salient point of the story.

Why this simple concept is so easy for ALL to see - yet you have to "pretend" not to get it -- is beyond me.

Hey kids, if you build enough strawmen, ignore enough data, keep your head in the sand and maintain the cognitive dissonance, you too can be a ....

"you too can be a" true believer in atheist darwinism??

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW said
He (Bob) quotes my abstract where it says that "geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology" all provide evidence for the symbiotic origin of the eukaryotes. And then goes right on as if he did not even read the sentence.

You said that there was "no evidence." The author asserts that these things provide evidence

He does not seem to be careful to even quote himself accurately. The article he posted said this -- "by contrast".

from the Article itself
Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution

UTEOTW translates "offerred insight" into the idea that they actually PROVIDED EVIDENCE.

But what is worse - the snippet that UTEOTW did not actually do "anything" but tell stories -

Here is UTEOTW's quote again

Sabrina D. Dyall, Mark T. Brown, Patricia J. Johnson, Ancient Invasions: From Endosymbionts to Organelles, Science 9 April 2004: Vol. 304. no. 5668, pp. 253 - 257

The acquisitions of mitochondria and plastids were important events in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell, supplying it with compartmentalized bioenergetic and biosynthetic factories. Ancient invasions by eubacteria through symbiosis more than a billion years ago initiated these processes. Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles. In losing their autonomy, endosymbionts lost the bulk of their genomes, necessitating the evolution of elaborate mechanisms for organelle biogenesis and metabolite exchange. In the process, symbionts acquired many host-derived properties, lost much of their eubacterial identity, and were transformed into extraordinarily diverse organelles that reveal complex histories that we are only beginning to decipher.

The only actual fact is that we have had "Advances" in the sciences listed -- but "offered insight" is merely propaganda language for "have been used in our story telling" but it does not mean "have SHOWN the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles in the lab"

Everybody KNOWS this.

UTEOTW simply hopes that his frantic handwaiving will encourage some to "overlook it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I would still like to know how you as a layperson feel qualified to judge the merits of a paper you have not read in a subject in which you have no understanding.

Your complaint boils down to saying that the abstract did not provide enough details. Do you know what an abstract is? They summarize. And I don't know what point you are trying to make by straining gnats over the authors use of the phrase "offered insight." Do you really think he meant something other than what I assert? (I have to remember your history of quoting here, you just might.)

Go read the paper and the references and the other papers to which I linked and their references. Then do a citation search and read everything that cited the others. Then tell me what is wrong with the details.

For quibbling over equivilent phrasing and complaining that an abstract was not detailed enough for you is getting you no where. Well I guess it is upping your post count.

 

[BobRyan]

Your complaint boils down to saying that the abstract did not provide enough details. Do you know what an abstract is? They summarize.

My complaint is that the summary provides no facts. My complaint is that IF it were true that some place IN the article there was an actual fact that substantively proved or supported the story-telling then you were remiss to leave that dainty morsel out of your "proof" quote.

Giving us nothing but "empty assertions" and story telling - as a junk-science "promise" that some place in the article was a substantive fact -- was a poor way to "prove a point" of ANY kind!

Usually when we debate ANY topic here - we sift through the references for that KEY FACT that makes our case and then show that the summary highlights that fact.

You did neither.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I am not doing your work for oyu.

I gave you the refence and the summary. The summary tell of the evidence for the symbiotic origin of eukaryotes. The details can be found in the paper and its references and in the papers that cite it.

I cannot help it that you are willing to dismiss thousands of experts and thousands of papers in a subject where you have zero knowledge and where you refuse to even read the papers.

 

[El_Guero]

I as a graduate school trained professional and a practicing computer engineer have read several of the 'papers' for which you provided a link and a summary.

I have found:

Your papers sometimes add support to what you are arguing;

Your papers are always in technical jargon that obfuscates the intent of the paper and are difficult to read;

Your papers are sometimes TOTALLY wrong and are later peer reviewed and shown to be such;

And USUALLY your papers only resemble what you claim they are . . .

Out of more than a dozen papers that you referenced that I read, I learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of merit.

ZERO.

NADA.

Nothing.

Occasionally you have made a point of valid argument yourself, but your 'papers' have often had little to do with the topic for which you claim they support.

I, personally, have asked you clear and EASY questions for which you did NOT have an answer (clear or otherwise).

And as always . . . Your LOGIC IS FAILED logic. You have NEVER presented clear and logical support for any of your claims.

Let us judge the merit of what you have said for the last couple of years from this one post:

You imply that a layperson cannot argue against you because of your implied special knowledge.

Support it. Show how an ad hominem adds to your argument.

For years, you have argued against college educated professionals that they are not professional enough to read what you have posted and the citations in the articles you have given and the books those articles reference in them. You constantly want someone to read a thousand books in order to understand a point that you CANNOT make.

So using your logic back at you - read the books in the following bibliographies and when you are finished - I might think you are academic enough to carry on a logical conversation with you - until then get ....

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/logic.html

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/mirror/bibliography/Theory/logic.wong.html

http://www.mathworks.com/access/hel...ogle.com/search?hl=en&q=bibliography+of+logic

http://www.historyofscience.it/StoriadellaLogica_Biblio.htm

to have ANY validity, your arguments would indicate that you yourself have read 100,000 plus books . . . The bibliographies that I posted should be readable by you in the next week or so . . .

I would still like to know how you as a layperson feel qualified to judge the merits of a paper you have not read in a subject in which you have no understanding.

Your complaint boils down to saying that the abstract did not provide enough details. Do you know what an abstract is? They summarize. And I don't know what point you are trying to make by straining gnats over the authors use of the phrase "offered insight." Do you really think he meant something other than what I assert? (I have to remember your history of quoting here, you just might.)

Go read the paper and the references and the other papers to which I linked and their references. Then do a citation search and read everything that cited the others. Then tell me what is wrong with the details.

For quibbling over equivilent phrasing and complaining that an abstract was not detailed enough for you is getting you no where. Well I guess it is upping your post count.