Sender
Are lies and ignorance the thing you WANT to be known by???
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
There is no such law, except in what passes for thought in a creationists mind, if they have a mind.
In work recently reported in the Journal of the American Chemical
Society, Professor Rebek and his coworkers, Tjama Tjivikua, a graduate
student from Namibia, and Pablo Ballester, a visiting scientist from
the University of Palma in Mallorca, Spain, described the creation of an
extraordinary self-replicating molecular system.
http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
Simply a lie, the Miller-Urey experiment was just the first of a long line of investigations leading to advances such as the above at MIT.
3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
Mendel's work simply sets out the way in which heredity and dominant/recessive genes are paired. It in no way deals with modification of those genes and sets no limits on that modification. This is just discredited creationist boilerplate and a lie, either through ignorance(probably wilful) or intent.
4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.
Well, Duh!!! It's called Lamarkianism and was disproved decades ago. Traits developed during an individuals life cannot be passed to future generations, only modifications in the genome are inherited. So, what's your point?
5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
Pure BS folks. The genetic mutations in the Influenza genome giving it immunity to our drugs is what is giving the whole world fits right now!!! And if that isn't a benificial mutation for that organism, what is it??? This is your STUPIDEST STATEMENT so far. Pure lunacy. Don't you even read these lies before you post??? Pure incompetence on your part.
6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.
Let's see, if the organism SURVIVES, that's bad for it's survival. Are you sure you want people knowing you said this???
7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
More Boilerplate(personally I call it BS, but I'm trying to be polite). The eye, for example, is such a benefit to an organism that it has developed along many different evolutionary pathways. Insects have compound eyes, spiders have up to 4 pairs, each optimized for different distances, Octopi have an eye in many ways superior to mans, plants have primative photo detectors, even algae and bacteria can detect the presence of light. All of these light sensing structures developed seperately from the eye you and I have(we inherited ours from fish) and they all developed step by step through the process of natural selection.
For those looking for detailed debunking of the irreducable complexity lie
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html
8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.
Excuse me, the CSBS is getting deep in here, I've got to put on my waders. Since sender tends to think volume equals quality he thinks if he shovels enough manure it will eventually turn into gold. So I will examine just one little nugget to show that it is all barnyard fertilizer.
The Bombadier Beetle, evolution thereof.
However, the theory of evolution also allows complex, functionally integrated, low-probability systems to arise via gradual variation and selection. For example, Darwin explained how, under his theory, a few photosensitive cells might evolve gradually into human eyes. [Darwin, 1872, chpt. 6] For complexity to be a problem for evolution, it must show some property that rules out gradual development. Michael Behe proposes such a property with the concept he calls "irreducible complexity," which he defines as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." [Behe, 1996, p. 39] Although Behe leaves open the questions of whether bombardier beetles are irreducibly complex, Gish expresses the concept succinctly with reference to them when he says, "How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!" [quoted in Weber, 1981]
Gish is wrong; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.
8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]
9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.
11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]
13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
15. The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.
A few other points regarding this scenario should be stressed:
Parts of an integral system need not be created specifically for that system, and features used for one purpose can be used for another purpose. The quinones which originally served to darken the cuticle later became used for defense. The muscles which control the valve and squeeze the reservior could easily be adapted from muscles which already existed in the beetle's abdomen.
Complexity can diminish as well as increase. In the proposed scenario, most of the invaginations in which quinones appeared later disappeared. In other cases, a structure could orginally develop with a complex supporting structure which later decreases or disappears.
Two or more parts can evolve a little at a time in conjunction with each other. The strength of the reaction chamber walls and the amount of catalases increased together. One did not have to be present in its final form before the other existed.
Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples.
Most important, nature is not constrained by any person's lack of imagination.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Simular small step scenarios can be imagined for the eye(as Darwin did) and any other organ or process seen in nature. Irreducable complexity does not exist. (notice the bold sentence in the above paragraph? Look familiar???)
9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.
What a load. Every creature alive today is on the path to what it will become in the future. Every fossil we have found has been of a creature part way on it's path to what it is now. Birds did come from dinosaurs, dogs did come from wolves, we did come from apes.
10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.
This is a strawman and is dishonesy. Organisms do not change into different organisms, cats don't evolve into dogs. Instead cats produce more cats, but with modifications(the longer fangs of Sabre Tooth, for example). Given a long enough time and enough small changes and your end product is a very different animal than what you had to begin with. Thus an arroc can become a buffalo and a Guernsey and a Holstein and an Angus. Groups don't come from other groups but both groups CAN have a common ancestor. Just as on a tree, once the branches of life deviate they do not grow back together but must continue on their own path.
11. Species are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.
Simply a lie unworthy of comment.
12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.
The fossil record is nothing but transitional forms, everything is midway between what it was and what it will become. I have to admit, this statement is stupider and more dishonest than any other(so far)
13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.
Stupid statement number...wait, I've lost count...never mind.
14. Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.
Let's see, animals with six legs and their skeleton on the outside and living underwater(hint, goes good with steak).
And the scorpion is a DIRECT descendent of the sea scorpion.
15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".
Bees, wasps, ants and termites are all very close to each other in evolutionary terms. All except the bees have both solitary and communal variants. The velvet ant, the dirt dauber wasp and a type of giant termite found in South America are all loners. So the social aspects of these creatures can develop seperately from the survival aspects. You just don't know enough of what you're posting to make any sense.
16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.
There are many questions we don't know all about yet, that doesn't mean we will never know. We've only been studying this stuff for the last 150 years, I'm supprised we know as much as we do. But fish do it, shellfish do it, jellyfish do it, even bacteria exchange genetic material, so sex is a very old way to reproduce DNA.
17. Human speech and languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.
Once again a very stupid and easily debunked statement.
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ ... onkeys.cfm
Read all about how wrong you are, I'm through educating you for tonite, consider it your homework, there will be a test on the material.
So much ignorance and misinformation in one post, I'm amazed you would show your face after that faux paus.
Grumpy 8)
