On 30 Sep 2005 07:10:33 -0700, "magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, you tell me how variations introduces NEW GENES.

New genes arise through mutations and viral inserts and duplications.
Ask me something hard.

Mutations are errors aren't they?

And if viral inserts introduces new genes, then how does the original RNA
recognise them and thus assist in reproduction? So the RNA is modified by
the viral inserts as well?

And BTW, RNA came first or DNA.I am confused here.

- snipped -

Are they really wonderful progression or just insane extrapolation?

Well let's see. They exist in distinct stratigraphic layers. As you go
deeper into the rock, the specimens become more reptile-like, and as
you come up through the rock, the species are more and more
mammal-like. No single transition is between groups that are so very
different from one another that it would be outlandish to accept they
are related to one another. And the ancestors are always found in the
same regions as the descendents. However, the morphological alterations
in the jaw and middle ear are quite distinct.

Is that also seen in the genes? Is there also a similar change in the same
gene that leads to these changes?

And the creationists argue that not everywhere the rock layers are in the
order being portrayed in the textbooks. And some of these cannot be
explained away by volcanic eruptions of fold-over (or whatever geologists
called it).

In fact, some younger fossils are found in older rocks according to some of
the 'creationist propaganda' I have read.

Can you explain that so I can clear my confusion?

So if you have never seen dogs before and I start with chihuahua skulls and
arrange them nicely up to the Rottweiler and tell you that's the evolution
of dogs, and you would buy it, wholesale?

Do you realize why that is a strawman argument? What makes you think
that Rottweilers are somehow descended from chihuahuas? In any case,
the breeds of dogs all arose in the span of recorded history. You could
probably fool a biologist if you lied and said the skulls were
discovered in different layers of rock. Science works with truths, not
falsehoods, so we are usually unprepared when someone tells us a lie.
We do make mistakes now and then, but you do notice that the process of
science, done properly, is self-correcting. That is quite evident in
the cases of Piltdown, and "Nebraska Man".

Unfortunately some of those aren't corrected in the textbooks, are they?

Haeckel's false pics for example?

And well, talking about strata, I was told that some fossils of dead trees
were found to cross several strata.

- snipped -

Nope. Because that's MICRO-EVOLUTION, not macro-evolution.

Biologists have exact definitions for those terms (neither of which is
hyphenated, by the way). Can you please tell me what you mean when you
use those words? I'm pretty sure it will be different from what
biologists mean.

Micro-evolution, from what I understand, an organism adapting to the
environment perhaps?

Macro-evolution, well, fish to frogs to reptiles to birds blah blah...

After that, please address the most important issue: what biological
phenomenon exists that prevents the accumulation of small changes to
such a degree that they add up to a large change?

That I don't know. I am not a biologist.

But when I was training as a mechanic, I know that even if I manage to fit
screw in the parts with a 3/4" bolt instead of a 5/8" one, I won't get a new
machine. Also, maybe using a different gasket may end up giving me a car
that performs better, that doesn't give me a new car.

It's about the same as different languages.
Just because your neighbour next door maybe speaking another langauge
doesn't make him another species. Does it?

Do you see why that is another strawman argument? I hear Song Sparrows
outside my house singing in the Spring. When I go to Virginia, I hear
Song Sparrows there also, but their song is slightly different. No,
they are not different species. But when I go to upstate New York and
hear Fox Sparrows, their song is quite distinct, and although they are
obviously related to Song Sparrows, only a crazy person would think
they were the same species.

And I suppose they are also genetically different, somewhat? And ducks and
chickens are somewhat related, no?

Now here's another strawman for you: the French speaks a very different
language from what I speak here. It is distinctively different. So, for me
not to be crazy, they must have be an entirely DIFFERENT species.

- snipped -

You can go read them and find out. Some of these 'creationists' are your
fellow biologists too, though I suspect they are getting ostrachised and
disown and considered a bunch of quacks.

I notice that you studiously avoid presenting any real problems with
evolution. This is a discussion group- why not discuss? I am certainly
not going to do your homework and legwork for you. Besides, you
probably know where the *real* problems are described. When I look for
them, all I see is nonsense that has been refuted over and over and
over.

You may consider them nonsense, to me it is a fact that evolution is then
not as obvious as it is claimed to be acceptable right away.

Anyway, I suppose whatever * real * problems I can bring up will have been
brought up before. (I am sure once the creationist bring them up in their
books they would be shot down).

I do not intend to waste my time (and yours) to have you go through them
again. And yes, if you choose to say I am running away, then I am. This
isn't a life and death issue anyway and whether scientists think I am from a
monkey or fish doesn't really mean anything to me.

- snipped-

But that's what was done to Galileo Galilei too.

"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it isn't enough to be persecuted. You
also have to be right." --S.J. Gould

Ah.. Gould... the godfather of evolutionists.

Sounds like an explicit argument that the creationists are right.
Wahahahaha... * sorry *

I will leave it to your experts to sort it out yourselves.

When I put that last sentence through Babel Fish, it comes out as:
"I'm running away now. Bye!"

Funny.

I put my sentence through Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and it actually
came up as: "So long. And thanks for all the Fish."

And indeed.

So long. And thanks for all the fish.

<42>