DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 18, 2013, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ashvin link=topic=2195.msg39141#msg39141
date=1387380080]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=2195.msg39063#msg39063
date=1387315219]
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such
analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up
at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no
proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not
related to something else when they appear at the same time?
Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to
evolve into another, period.[/quote]
A similar major flaw in the evolutionary paradigm can be shown
by comparing species with very similar mental attributes, but
which are, according to evolutionists, not at all related.
HTML http://www.reasons.org/articles/quoth-the-raven-nevermore
HTML http://www.reasons.org/articles/quoth-the-raven-nevermore
In the recent opinion essay in Nature, biologist Johan Bolhuis
and psychologist Clive Wynne accept the premise that species
have naturally evolved and, thus, possess shared ancestry. But
they contest the Darwinian principle “that species with shared
ancestry will have similar cognitive abilities.”5 For example,
researchers have noted cognitive similarities between physically
disparate species, but not necessarily between physically
similar species. Bolhuis and Wynne point out that this
“illustrates that cognitive traits cannot be neatly arranged in
an evolutionary scale of relatedness.”6
Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and
primates. In the Darwinian models, apes and humans are closely
related and share a relatively recent common ancestor. Birds, on
the other hand, are only distantly related to primates. Thus,
Darwinists predict that of all animals, apes should come closest
to manifesting the cognitive capabilities of human beings.
But Bolhuis and Wynne give examples where birds defy this
prediction. They cite how “Caledonian crows [though not quite
matching ravens in intellectual prowess] outperform monkeys in
their ability to retrieve food from a trap tube–from which food
can be accessed only at one end.”7 They also refer to an
experiment demonstrating that “crows can also work out how to
use one tool to obtain a second with which they can retrieve
food, a skill that monkeys and apes struggle to master.”8
Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the
mind than do apes. (See crows’ cognitive powers in action here.)
High cognitive abilities of certain bird species even sometimes
challenge a purely physical explanation for their behavior. Take
for example the marsh tit. This bird stores seeds in tree bark
or in the ground and is able to retrieve them days later while
its “close relative,” the great tit, doesn’t store food at all.9
Biologists presumed the difference would be explained by a
larger hippocampus in the brain of the food-storing birds. Alas,
the evidence doesn’t support this suggestion.10 Studies also
show that food-storers do not perform any better in spatial
memory tasks than do the non-food-storers.11
In their paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, three
psychology researchers at the University of California, Los
Angeles (UCLA), boldly declared Darwin’s idea of the continuity
of the mind (from lower species to higher) a mistake.12 They
argue “there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to
which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the
higher order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical
symbol system.”13 They go on to show that this discontinuity
“pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper
than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or
culture alone can explain.”14
[/quote]
#Post#: 583--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 18, 2013, 8:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
More from the doomstead Diner Thread ;D
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=2195.0
GO said, [quote]Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and
belief in magic are two very different things?
Likewise how things work and what humans are. [/quote]
[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Might I also suggest to the claim that "creationists are JUST
LAZY" by others here that probability and statistics
mathematicians are anything BUT lazy.
It is they who accuse you evolutionists of believing in fairy
tales and magic. Respond to that instead of hurling abuse at
creationists who you try to ridicule by bunching them falsely
with the "God created the universe in 6 days and we are only
6,000 years old" NUT BALLS.
You Darwinists are as NUTTY and faith based as the 6 day
creationists. You are also as arrogant and stubborn as they are.
Science states that either God did it or ET made this biosphere.
Either way, evolution is BUL****! Live with it or die in denial.
Your choice. ;)
[quote]... information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley)
realized this problem:
"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible
in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in
probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in
this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however]
A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by
chance."43
Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that
the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the
previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup
could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’.
He later concluded, "the primeval soup paradigm is
self-deception based on the ideology of its champions."44
More admissions
Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak
plainly on this issue:
"Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on
earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody
knows."—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher,
University of Calgary, Canada.45
"…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system,
only a variety of wishful speculations." —Franklin M. Harold,
Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Colorado State University.46
"Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously
organized themselves into the first living cell."—Professor Paul
Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47
"The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond
anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled
by how it was achieved."— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair,
department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.),
and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University
of California, USA).48
"Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be
characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism
that led all the way from the inception of the first
autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor.
All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still
do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the
magnitude of the problem."49
]"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of
life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules
[amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains
enormous."—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University
of California, USA.50
Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben
Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how
life began:
Richard Dawkins: "We know the sort of event that must have
happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first
self-replicating molecule."
Ben Stein: "How did that happen?"
Richard Dawkins: "I’ve told you, we don’t know."
Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"
Richard Dawkins: "No, nor has anybody."51
"We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study
of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of
scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology,
answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life
forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather
than definitive and conclusive."52 (emphasis added)[/b][/quote]
In nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have seen what a
mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a bit of pond
water. Observe the segmentation present also in millipedes and
centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple appendages
instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!
[img width=320
height=200]
HTML http://uq.edu.au/integrative-ecology/images/Predator/notoscriptus-larva.jpg[/img][img<br
/>width=320
height=200]
HTML http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/images/centipedemillipede/gardncnt.jpg[/img]
Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right
Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists,
to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The
insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400
million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection"
and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects -
Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW ;)).
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/comparison-of-dinosaurs-of-triassic-roy-andersen.jpg[/img]
comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period
[quote]Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation
???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity.
???
It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new
species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.
Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of
flowering plants.
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif<br
/> Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related
structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on
flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic
relationship is even more paramount in evolution
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gifconsidering<br
/>that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated. ;)
Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have
been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some
mammalian species.[/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects
I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell
you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as
related to studying hominid skulls.
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such
analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up
at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no
proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not
related to something else when they appear at the same time?
Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to
evolve into another, period.
Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes
(which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as
Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice
against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had
been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to
ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something
that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he? ;)
The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that,
OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was
incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to
be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they
say. Sniff!
When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because
Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12
million total of which most are insects at last count) of other
insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the
links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW
forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life -
angiosperms [quote]The apparently sudden appearance of
relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed
such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an
"abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6][/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant)!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of
inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to
talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all
sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most
gullible.
So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to
what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a
centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for
similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set
of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each
other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the
Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why?
Because they have a similar design and did not have time to
evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything
else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To
complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering
plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that
pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).
In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny
above, observe the following DATA presented and why the
conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts
to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).
1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has
latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures.
Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing
gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well.
However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out
for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL
"DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental
conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This
is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA
design.
The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in
natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of
mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When
Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That
process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple
symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two
extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects).
2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is
characterized by rapid adaptation
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif,
they jump to
the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick, ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity."
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif.
WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering
plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the
insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had
anything to do with natural selection or any other
"evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY
DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are
virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!
So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of
evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some
"difficulty" in their procrustean bed?
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif<br
/>I don't think so.
After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they
go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance [img
width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>of new species,...".
Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS, "It appears
that [s]rapid radiations and[/s] the rapid simultaneous
appearance of new species depending for their existence on
multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural
selection".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the
present despite not having ANY significant change in insects
morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in
progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling
all available environmental niches."
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the
facts on the ground: It appears that the rapid simultaneous
appearance of new species depending for their existence on
multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural
selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in
the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all
available environmental niches of the present biosphere.
The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly
adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins.
Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism
that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence
that it is present today because we are experiencing a high
level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to,
insects and angiosperms.
THAT is honest science.
To do HONEST SCIENCE as to our origins, I would proceed from my
observation that mosquitoes and centipedes and angiosperms
appeared simultaneously to find out when WE appeared. I would
need a clock. I would start with Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years
accurately IF the carbon radioactive decay clock hasn't changed
over that period but I would start with it just the same). WHY?
Because we have items with organic carbon that we KNOW the date
of like Egyptian mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.
Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that,
since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the
C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older
than 100,000 years.
I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I
couldn't get C-14 data.
THEN I would start looking at DNA sequences.
Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one
that looks most like us would I dig further. During that time I
would study the tendon bone attachments, anatomy and physiology
of hominid skulls. I would go where the data took me.
Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal
(created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But
it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the
Darwinian one because evolution doesn't have proof of their
most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the
first cell).
Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species
popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata.
I think I'm being more scientific and empirical than the
Darwinists "it's all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you? [img
width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png[/img]
[move]It isn't "EASY" to believe in Created life versus
Evolution; it is LOGICAL and Science BASED. It is also HARD to
accept that we owe our existence to a supreme being much smarter
than we are. But it is REALLY EASY to pretend we can do whatever
the **** we want using a Darwinian Fairy tale to ignore ethical
behavior. In Fact, there is NOTHING EASIER or LAZIER than saying
life is a crap shoot. [color=blue] How ****ing convenient for
you arrogant ****s. ;) Have a nice day. [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
[/move]
#Post#: 584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 18, 2013, 10:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Eddie,
You are on a ROLL, today. Yahoo! If I didn't know you were from
Texas, I would know now! :icon_mrgreen:
Thank you for your enjoyment of my Renewable energy support.
[img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png[/img]
Of course I am prone to a bit of sermonizing and vitriol now and
then. ;D
It goes with the territory. Eddie, I have been THERE with
college professors and health care professionals for the last 30
years or so on the intolerance, disdain, disparagement and
continuous smirks about being ignorant and a magical thinker.
For nearly 8 months you have consistently weighed in on the
issue of Christians in particular and believers in God in
general maintaining repeatedly that they are magical thinkers as
if you are discussing root canals or some other truth of your
experience and profession.
Every time you do that, you are moving into religious territory
and defending your world view. It should NOT bother you that we
challenge it. But every time you talk about believers in God and
scoffers of evolution like they are idiots, you are opening
yourself up to debate.
If you don't want to talk religion, that's cool. Don't say we
are magical thinkers. Every time you do, I will challenge you.
Do you think I have no clue where you are at? You live in Texas!
You married someone who's father was a preacher, right? I know
how intolerable and stuffed shirty those people can be. I know
how pompous and rigid they can be too. Hypocrisy is rife in
Evangelical Christianity. But they don't have a ****ing
franchise on magical thinking and hypocrisy. When they get
legalistic about 6 day creation or the Sabbath or whatever, they
are justifying such wishful thinking with magical thinking that
Moses was God's stenographer. But to group people who believe
God created us with judgmental legalists is wrong, offensive,
objectionable and unscientific. I do admit it's easier to group
us all together as whackos not worthy serious consideration.
I have argued against evolution while I believed it was the way
things happened since 1985 because my profs could not answer my
questions about it logically.
I read a lot of science articles and the word "evolution" is
like flies on **** for them. They just cannot write without
using that word. I've got one about E. Coli "evolving" for a few
years through thousands of generations in closed containers by
varying nutritional content (the latest buzzword in evolutionary
circles because they are in the process of **** canning natural
selection in favor of caloric forced gene expression - more
fairy tales ::)).
The E. Coli is STILL, low and behold, E. Coli but one group
metabolizes sugars at a few percentage points (about 3%) faster
than the other so that is EVOLUTION! Give me a ****ing break
here! The term ADAPTATION has been captured by the
evolutionists. Adaptation is gene expression to environmental
conditions from a pre-existing package. That is NOT EVOLUTION.
WE intelligently designed E. Coli to make insulin by putting
some plasmids into it but in millions of years it didn't do it
on its own, did it?
Remember those coin flipping exercises in genetics? You know
that it takes a LONG time to get students to obtain 9 tails and
one head or vice versa by each person flipping one coin ten
times. Now to get protein folded amino acids just right
(assuming you HAVE all the amino acids you need all present) you
need SEQUENTIAL 9 to one "mutations" (gross simplification but
you get the idea). You need thousands of SEQUENTIAL (as in one
after the other with NO GAPS) 9 to one mutations for that first
cell. So if it takes one million years of primeval soup amino
acid random folding to get ONE key protein, you need to go
FACTORIAL (million times a million times a million, etc.) to get
ALL the protein sequences needed for life.
There isn't enough time in a 14 billion year universe for that.
Remember all that stuff about vaccines and evolution? Remember
how the cocci this or the bacilli that will "EVOLVE" antibiotic
resistance? Hello? They are STILL cocci this or bacillus that,
are they not? They didn't become E. Coli. There was adaptation,
not evolution.
But they DID get some foreign genetic material so that must be
evolution, right? WRONG. The "evolutionary advantage" that
allowed them to become more virulent did not change their
species. They adapted BECAUSE their DNA package allowed a
plasmid for antibiotic resistance to be incorporated as part of
its original design. The process by which Streptococcus
pneumonia metabolizes sugars and reproduces DID NOT CHANGE. It
is STILL Streptococcus pneumonia. But we were TAUGHT that was
EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION. NOT!
What we did to E. Coli for insulin production is crude. It's
still E. Coli even though we altered its metabolism. There comes
a point in messing with bacterial DNA when the changes are
rejected and it dies because every life form has programming to
prevent becoming whatever it ISN'T. Nature breeds TRUE. DNA
edits fastidiously to AVOID change. You know this.
Natural DE-selection works to cull species but natural selection
has never produced an ORIGIN OF SPECIES as Darwin postulated.
If Darwin had seen the following short video, he would NEVER
have tried to push the theory of evolution. Evolution is story
telling magical thinking. If you don't agree, show me some proof
that it is occurring. Instead of "change is constant in the
natural world" meme we had hammered into us by evolutionary
thinking, science has discovered that the DNA inside cells fight
change continuously through very sophisticated editing.
Notice what happens AFTER a protein amino acid sequence is (in a
complex, multistage process) manufactured. At that point these
tiny machines called Chaperones grab the sequence to PREVENT it
from RANDOMLY folding. Did you get that? Every millisecond of
every second of the day, trillions of chaperones inside cells
are busy PREVENTING random amino acid folding. These chaperones
carry the sequence to the chaperonin. They DO NOT KNOW how this
CRUCIAL MACHINE does what it does.
And what does it DO? It FOLDS an amino acid sequence in EXACTLY
the right complex 3 dimensional pattern worthy of a
sophisticated factory robot and pumps out a protein. IT makes
many, many DIFFERENT proteins. Protein folding is the process
that was necessary for the first cell. And the arrogant
evolutionists, who can't explain NOW the nuts and bolts of the
Chaperonin have the brass balls to assume it happened randomly!
Talk about MAGICAL THINKING!
How does it KNOW, when a sequence arrives, that the folding
pattern is one of thousands? They DON'T KNOW.
And NO, the key is not in the amino acid sequence. You can have
two proteins (enzymes are like that) with exactly the same amino
acid sequence but folded differently so they actually have
different and extremely specific functions.
The more science learns, the more they realize we don't know
BEANS about life yet.
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0hZLDOb00&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
HOW can ANYBODY believe the above happened RANDOMLY?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif
For those who have no training in microbiology, I will provide a
series of pictures in the next post to give you an overview of
the above video so you can view it again and marvel at this cell
machinery in action.
#Post#: 586--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 18, 2013, 11:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213232623.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213232806.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213232944.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233141.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233333.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233505.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213233627.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181213234206.png[/img]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0hZLDOb00&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
Here's the video again. Enjoy!
#Post#: 589--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: December 20, 2013, 8:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin Debates Bot Blogger:
[quote]So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years
ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million
years ago) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of
Eden on earth. Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth
over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in
humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is
That AGs story?
[/quote]
That could be a working hypothesis to explain the scientific
data, yes. (but the science here only gets us to an "Intelligent
Designer", not necessarily the God of the Bible)
Quote
[quote][color=navy][size=12pt]Do we trust scientists to use
carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the
passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the
window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the
timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical
stories, if you don't mind. :icon_mrgreen:
[/quote]
Excluding Genesis 1 creation account, all of the Biblical
stories coincide with times after the appearance of modern
humans...
Quote
[quote][color=navy][size=12pt]Science is going to be the means
by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with
an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love
mystery. :icon_sunny:
[/quote]
Why not? You just came up with a plausible scientific answer
above. :emthup:
Agelbert, now that Ashvin
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/thankyou.gif
has done most of the
logic and truth leg work, makes a few observations and adds a
few emoticons too! :icon_mrgreen:
[quote][color=navy][size=12pt]So God dropped some life on the
planet 4 BILLION years
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif<br
/> ago and
then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years
ago)
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif<br
/>
during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on
earth.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif<br
/>
Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next
few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being
plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story?
::)
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif
[/quote]
Let's skip the bible because my argument is based on CREATION of
the physical universe versus EVOLUTION through Random mutations
as a function of a RANDOM universe WITHOUT AN intelligent
designer. The later position is, I believe, your position, is it
not, Bot Blogger?
The former is my position and the one I wish to argue. I do not
wish to mix the stories in the bible with this simply because I
do not believe the stories in the bible about human origins are
scientifically accurate. Yeah, I believe God CREATED us. No, I
don't have a clue how he did it. That is why I accepted, for
most of my life, the theory of evolution as God's chosen
mechanism UNTIL I actually started studying molecular biology
and realized it was bullshit.
You claim that I claim that God "dropped" and "sprinkled" life
here and there along a multi billion year time line. You seem to
have a problem with using the verb "create". does it give you
hives or something? :icon_mrgreen: I get the fact that you
don't accept Creation as a possiblity in this universe. You have
make that painfully clear.
[quote][color=navy][size=12pt]Do we trust scientists to use
carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the
passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the
window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the
timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical
stories, if you don't mind. :icon_mrgreen:[/quote]
[color=purple]I repeat, the biblical stories aren't the issue
here. We can discuss HOW Creation took place ONLY if you AGREE
that it took place. As long as you don't, your best talking
point is to ridicule (rightfully so!) the 6 literal day
creationists that BELIEVE (without a shred of proof) that the
Earth and the rest of the universe is only 6,000 years old. Nice
try. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
I think Carbon-14, as I posted earlier, is the best way to go
with the dating. the other dating methods that reach into
millions or billions of years must work 100% of the time (They
don't. The scientific bias is ALWAYS to cherry pick the method
that provides the oldest age - to support the Evolution
Hypothesis, of course).
Tell me, dear Bot blogger, what does a scientist DO when he
finds a mosquito in geologic column strata of the Triassic
period (meaning some of his pals dined on Dino blood) and
discovers that the blood (REAL BLOOD - Heme Groups with iron and
Carbon - Not fossilized mineralization) in his gut has Carbon-14
in it? He discards it as an anomaly, a mistake, an instrument
error, etc. This has happened repeated times. I can provide
sources if you want.
So what's the problem? The problem is OTHER radiometric dating
techniques revealing a multi-million year strata where that
mosquito was found. And modern science (the experts, not me!)
state unequivocally that dead things with Carbon-14 in them
CANNOT be older than approximately 100,000 years. So the
"prudent" scientist tosses out the Carbon-14 data as
contamination or instrument error.
That is NOT science. That is Evolutionary Theory BIAS.
I bring all this to your attention because, while I agree that
the universe is possibly 14 billion years old, I am not
convinced that WE are. The Earth very well may be 4.5 billion
years old. SO WHAT? That isn't enough time for the FIRST CELL to
come about by random mutation amino acid folding.
[size=12pt][quote][color=navy][size=12pt]Science is going to be
the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with
an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love
mystery. :icon_sunny:
[/quote]
MY purpose is to eliminate unworkable theories of our origins.
If you feel you must have one to explain our existence apart
from an intelligent designer God, go for it. I will listen to
you. But you have nothing with evolution UNTIL you get past that
first cell.
Which brings me to my final observation. Please EXPLAIN the
Chaperones and, more importantly, the Chaperonin amino acid
processing, exquisitely precise protein folding mechanism from
the RANDOM UNIVERSE point of view which dictates primeval soup
self organizing amino acids and protein folding and the
evolution of complex, multicellular life and different species
through natural selection.
If you can't, because of probability and statistics, go where
the data takes you. I'll give you a working hypothesis that
excludes a CREATOR:
[color=purple]Monism: We are really just ONE organism. We have
ALWAYS been one organism. Time is an illusion. Matter is an
illusion. Separateness is an illusion. WE oscillate (Hi Carl
Sagan) between alternate universes creating (sorry to use that
word old boy. :icon_mrgreen:) the illusion of a Big Bang where
everything starts anew in a time line of ascending complexity of
life!
Since there ARE multiple universes and dimensions, probability
and statistics mean
nothing at all so ANYTHING is possible, prudent and we don't
need no silly creator. No evolution OR creator REQUIRED! So
there!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif
But that hypothesis seems a bit like magical thinking to me. How
about YOU? [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
#Post#: 613--------------------------------------------------
It seems that NEANDERTHAL APPEARANCE is "Evolving". LO
L!
By: AGelbert Date: December 24, 2013, 12:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well this is interesting. ;)
Here's the Neanderthal facial "reconstruction" we are used to
seeing in the press:
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191113154201.jpeg[/img]
Now look at the Neanderthal facial reconstruction in this recent
article. :o It seems that they have DECIDED this fine fellow
had a bigger nose and chin. And they call this "SCIENCE"?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif
[img
width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
[quote]
[img width=640
height=280]
HTML http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/news_large/news-neanderthal-face.jpg[/img]
A reconstruction of a Neanderthal face. Image Credit: CC BY-SA
2.0 Tim Evanson
Scientists have come up with a list of the genes that
distinguish us from our prehistoric cousins.
Humans may be the dominant species on the planet today, but
thousands of years ago our ancestors shared the Earth with the
Neanderthals, a species very similar to modern humans but that
would ultimately die out despite being very close to us both
physically and intellectually.
In an effort to learn more about what set us apart, scientists
have been identifying specific genes that distinguish modern
humans from Neanderthals. In particular, researchers have been
keen to learn which changes might have been instrumental in
enabling our dominance over the planet.
The research was made possible thanks to a project founded in
2006 that aimed to sequence the entire Neanderthal genome. The
team managed to do this by extracting DNA from a 50,000-year-old
Neanderthal toe bone discovered in the mountains of Siberia.
"We are quite confident that among these genetic changes lie the
basis for the interesting differences between modern humans and
Neanderthals," said geneticist Janet Kelso.
Source: The Guardian [/quote]
HTML http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/259632/what-makes-us-different-to-neanderthals
HTML http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/259632/what-makes-us-different-to-neanderthals
Well, at least the professional archeologists have come to the
same conclusion I did (Neanderthals had a nose and a chin VERY
much like Homo Sapiens). In fact, you couldn't tell this fellow
above from some of our larger human specimens, now could you?
The trick is angling the skull. If you rotate it FORWARD, it
looks more human. If you rotate it BACK, it looks less human
(assumed more sloping forehead).
Let's be clear. They DO NOT know exactly how their head sat on
their neck. Ape heads sit forward of ours. I think they made
that SAME assumption about Neanderthals as they do for apes
instead of humans and that is why they pushed the MISSING LINK
scam with some "appearance" justification.
NOW they are forced to admit these people were pretty
intelligent. So low and behold, the face starts to look more
like Homo SAP! [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
It's a nut house of facial reconstructions out there right now!
[img width=640
height=640]
HTML http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4w0zz5TOPxo/TsgPJuNO6iI/AAAAAAAAAfk/ryG_c9Rs1Io/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-11-19+at+12.17.51.png[/img]
HTML http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2011/11/nose-to-nose-thine-neanderthal-eye-in.html
HTML http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2011/11/nose-to-nose-thine-neanderthal-eye-in.html
And it gets BETTER! They have discovered proof that Neanderthals
BURIED THEIR DEAD in addition to using stone tools! You know
what? I think they are US! Just like domesticated dogs are quite
different from wolves, that explains the differences. Not that
the evolutionary true believers would accept that, of course.
But, but, they were shorter and stockier!! Uh, I guess pygmies
aren't HUMAN, right? ;) There wasn't a lot of travel.
Inbreeding DOES that sort of thing. We have lots of proof of
that in modern history!
Do you want some more proof that morphology can change radically
without evolution? The Spaniards lost some domesticated pigs in
what is now the USA in the 16th century that, without breeding
with any other animal or changing their DNA, grew tusks and
increased in size and ferocity in the wild and became WILD
BOARS! Google it if you don't believe it!
As mankind had a more domesticated and less violent existence,
he, like the domesticated dogs and goats and pigs, adapted with
a softer appearance in less robust skull. If you don't believe
that is possible, then WHY do you think the moment and astronaut
gets into zero G, his body tries to get rid of his calcium? What
would a human baby, with the SAME DNA (no evolution whatsoever)
look like that was born and raised in Zero G? RADICALLY
DIFFERENT!
The adaptation mechanisms in our DNA package are incredibly
underrated by modern science for no other reason than the
assumption that we "evolved" from some monstrous and
semi-intelligent brute.
Well, if you had to live in ice age conditions and fought bears
and mammoths, you might not be exactly a tender hearted fellow
with good table manners. In fact, only the meanest, baddest,
strongest males would survive. And they probably, as you can see
by their skulls, were pretty fierce fellows. How do we KNOW they
"died out" because WE "replaced" them? I've seen wrestlers that
look more primitive than these Neanderthals! There is, even now
that we are all a bunch of softies because of technology, and
amazing amount of variation in human skull morphology. So much
so, in fact, that some racists archeologists have tried to
establish with measurements and angles that Africans are "less
evolved" than Caucasians! BULLshit!
You don't believe me? Check this out:
[quote]
[img width=640
height=750]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241213014507.gif[/img]
Erectus Walks
Amongst Us
The evolution of modern humans
by
Richard D. Fuerle
Spooner Press, NY
Copyright © 2008
ISBN 978-1-60458-121-8
Printed in the United States by Lightning Source
[/quote]
HTML http://erectuswalksamongst.us/
HTML http://erectuswalksamongst.us/
If you are the least bit racist, you will LOVE the way this guy,
a scientist, mind you, twists science to push racism.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
He DELIBERATELY angles skulls to make Africans look more ape
like and Caucasians more "beautiful" (his words! when describing
forehead slopes angles and such.). He measures something to do
with the protrusion of the teeth below the nose and the width of
the jaw to claim Africans are more ape-like than Caucasians by
showing some drawings from the ape to an African to a Caucasian
jaw. The pictures of skulls of Africans, Asians and Caucasians
look normal except the African skull has exaggerated features. I
would not be surprised if he altered the picture to make the
African skull look more ape like.
There are a lot of very SICK racists out there. A lot of them
are scientists. Some of them are archeologists like the low life
that wrote the above book. >:(
Just because a SCIENTIST said it, doesn't not mean you should
BELIEVE IT!
#Post#: 656--------------------------------------------------
More Proof that Bacteria ADAPT, they DO NOT EVOLVE
By: AGelbert Date: January 4, 2014, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://srxa.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/multi-drug-resistant-pseudomonas-aeruginosa-horizontal-gallery.jpg[/img]
Pseudomonas aeruginosa looks SIMPLE, doesn't it? ;)
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.bioscience.org/2002/v7/d/yu/fig1.jpg[/img]
Pseudomonas aeruginosa reality is quite complex. 8)
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/92575/350wm/C0028334-Pseudomonas_Aeruginosa_Protein-SPL.jpg[/img]
The above is just ONE example of thousands of extremely complex
amino acid folding operation products (a protein) manufactured
by the humble Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
In a 14 billion year old universe, their isn't enough TIME to
produce this folding complexity randomly. Tough luck,
evolutionists! ???
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
[img
width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Genetically Identical Bacteria Can Behave in Radically Different
Ways
Posted in News, Bacteria, Research
Although a population of bacteria may be genetically identical,
individual bacteria within that population can act in radically
different ways. This phenomenon is crucial in the bacteria's
struggle for survival. The more diversity a population of
bacteria has, the more likely it will contain individuals able
to take advantage of a new opportunity or overcome a new threat,
including the threat posed by an antibiotic.
In a recent study, researchers at the University of Washington
showed that when a bacterial cell divides into two daughter
cells there can be an uneven distribution of cellular
organelles. The resulting cells can behave differently from each
other, depending on which parts they received in the split.
"This is another way that cells within a population can
diversify. Here we've shown it in a bacterium, but it probably
is true for all cells, including human cells," says Dr. Samuel
Miller, UW professor of microbiology, genome sciences, and
medicine and the paper's senior author.
Bridget Kulasekara, who obtained a PhD in the UW Molecular and
Cellular Biology Program, was the paper's lead author. Other
contributors included: Hemantha Kulasekara, Matthias Christen,
and Cassie Kamischke, who work in Miller's lab, and Paul
Wiggins, UW assistant professor of physics and bioengineering.
The paper appears in the online journal eLife.
In an earlier paper, Miller and his colleagues showed that when
bacteria divided, the concentration of an important regulatory
molecule, called cyclic diguanosine monophosphate (c-di-GMP).
was unevenly distributed between the two progeny. c-di-GMP is a
second messenger molecule. That finding was published in the
journal Science in 2010.
Second messenger molecules transmit signals from sensors or
receptors on the cell's external membrane to targets within the
cell, where they can rapidly alter a wide variety of cellular
functions, such as metabolism and mobility.
The ability to respond to external stimuli quickly is important
for the bacteria's survival. For instance, to stay alive, a
bacterium must not hesitate to swim towards nutrients or away
from toxins. This directional movement of microorganisms,
spurred by the presence of a helpful or harmful substance, is
known as chemotaxis.
"The effect of second messengers is almost immediate," says
Miller. "They allow bacteria to change their behavior within
seconds."
To detect the difference in c-di-GMP levels between cells, the
researchers used a technique called Förster resonance energy
transfer microscopy, or FRET microscopy. This allowed them to
measure nanomolar changes of the concentration of c-di-GMP
within individual bacteria as the changes happened second by
second.
Different concentrations of c-di-GMP can have a profound
influence on a cell's behavior. For example, in the bacteria
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, cells with high levels of c-di-GMP tend
to remain still, adhere to surfaces and form colonies. Those
with low levels, on the other hand, tend to actively swim about
by using a corkscrew-shaped propeller located at one end of the
bacterium.
In the latest study, the Miller and his colleagues worked out
the molecular mechanism behind the difference in c-di-GMP
concentrations seen between daughter cells.
When Pseudomonas cells divide, they pinch in half to create two
daughter cells. Although the cells are genetically identical,
only one daughter cell can inherit the bacterium's single
propeller. The other cell can synthesize its own propeller, but
immediately after division the two cells are quite different.
What Miller and his coworkers report in the eLife paper is that
the daughter cell that inherits the propeller also inherits an
enzyme that is closely associated with the propeller that
degrades c-di-GMP, as well as the organelle involved in
directing movement toward or away from stimuli that activates
this enzyme.
Together these two organelles work in concert to lower the
concentration of c-di-GMP and control swimming.
"What we have shown is that the uneven inheritance of organelles
is another way cells have to create diversity and increase the
chances of the survival of its species," Miller says.
He added that his team's findings may help explain how bacteria
resist antibiotic treatments by always having some cells in
their populations be in a slow-growing, resting state. Since
antibiotics target fast-growing cells, these resting cells are
more likely to survive the treatment. The findings might also
help explain how some bacteria are able to adhere to and
colonize surfaces such as urinary catheters, intravenous lines
and heart valves.
In ongoing research, Miller's team is trying to get a better
understanding of the signals that can change second messenger
concentrations very quickly and is screening compounds that
could interfere with or alter those signals. Such compounds
could be used to combat drug resistance, for instance, or
inhibit a bacterium's ability to adhere to surfaces and form
slime-like colonies, called biofilms, that are highly resistant
to antibiotics.
The new paper, as well as the earlier study, which appeared in
the journal Science in 2010, are both available free online.
The research was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (Grant number: 5U54AI057141-09) the National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (Grant number
2007047910) and the National Institutes of Health (Grant number
1R21NS067579-0).
Reference: Kulasekara et al. c-di-GMP heterogeneity is generated
by the chemotaxis machinery to regulate flagellar motility.
ELife. 2013;2:e01402. Chisten M et al. Asymmetrical Distribution
of the Second Messenger c-di-GMP upon Bacterial Cell Division.
Science. 2010; 328(5983):1295-1297 DOI: 10.1126/science.1188658
HTML http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2014/01/genetically-identical-bacteria-can-behave-in-radically-different-ways.aspx
HTML http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2014/01/genetically-identical-bacteria-can-behave-in-radically-different-ways.aspx
Agelbert NOTE: There is zero proof that [I]Pseudomonas
aeruginosa[/I] (or any other bacteria for that matter) becomes
another bacterial species when it adapts to some antibiotic by
developing antibiotic resistance (less or more cyclic
diguanosine monophosphate in the progeny aiding or inhibiting
chemotaxis). No ORIGIN OF SPECIES here, folks! No CHANGE from
this bacteria to a NEW kind of bacteria means NO EVOLUTION.
Signed, your favorite "fanatic".
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-animal-067.gif
#Post#: 675--------------------------------------------------
More Orwellian "logic" from the evolutionist true beli
evers
By: AGelbert Date: January 8, 2014, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Amber fossil reveals ancient reproduction in flowering
plants
01/02/2014
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A 100-million-year old piece of amber has been
discovered which reveals the oldest evidence of sexual
reproduction in a flowering plant – a cluster of 18 tiny flowers
from the Cretaceous Period – with one of them in the process of
making some new seeds for the next generation. ;D
The perfectly-preserved scene, in a plant now extinct, is part
of a portrait created in the mid-Cretaceous when flowering
plants were changing the face of the Earth forever, adding
beauty, biodiversity and food. It appears identical to the
reproduction process that “angiosperms,” or flowering plants
still use today.
Researchers from Oregon State University and Germany published
their findings on the fossils in the Journal of the Botanical
Institute of Texas.
The flowers themselves are in remarkable condition, as are many
such plants and insects preserved for all time in amber. The
flowing tree sap covered the specimens and then began the long
process of turning into a fossilized, semi-precious gem. The
flower cluster is one of the most complete ever found in amber
and appeared at a time when many of the flowering plants were
still quite small.
Even more remarkable is the microscopic image of pollen tubes
growing out of two grains of pollen and penetrating the flower’s
stigma, the receptive part of the female reproductive system.
This sets the stage for fertilization of the egg and would begin
the process of seed formation – had the reproductive act been
completed.
“In Cretaceous flowers we’ve never before seen a fossil that
shows the pollen tube actually entering the stigma,” said George
Poinar, Jr., a professor emeritus in the Department of
Integrative Biology at the OSU College of Science. “This is the
beauty of amber fossils. They are preserved so rapidly after
entering the resin that structures such as pollen grains and
tubes can be detected with a microscope.”
The pollen of these flowers appeared to be sticky, Poinar said,
suggesting it was carried by a pollinating insect, and adding
further insights into the biodiversity and biology of life in
this distant era. At that time much of the plant life was
composed of conifers, ferns, mosses, and cycads. During the
Cretaceous, new lineages of mammals and birds were beginning to
appear, along with the flowering plants. But dinosaurs still
dominated the Earth.
“The evolution
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gifof<br
/>flowering plants caused an enormous change in the biodiversity
of life on Earth, especially in the tropics and subtropics,”
Poinar said.
“New associations between these small flowering plants and
various types of insects and other animal life resulted in the
successful distribution and evolution of these plants through
most of the world today,” he said. “It’s interesting that the
mechanisms for reproduction that are still with us today had
already been established some 100 million years ago.”[img
width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
The fossils were discovered from amber mines in the Hukawng
Valley of Myanmar, previously known as Burma. The
newly-described genus and species of flower was named
Micropetasos burmensis.[/quote]
HTML http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/jan/amber-fossil-reveals-ancient-reproduction-flowering-plants
Agelbert NOTE: Yeah, it SURE IS "INTERESTING" ALL RIGHT! It's SO
"interesting" that it is absolutely amazing that it doesn't
occur to these marvels of erudition that the FACT that the
flowering plants show up at the same time as the pollinating
insects with no change in the mechanism for 100 million years
NEGATES evolutionary theory rather than supports it.
And then there is the further bag of pollen "worms" that IF this
pollen has C-14 in it, there is no way in hell that this
angiosperm can be older than 100,000 years!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif
Don't expect any C-14 tests from these "100 million year old"
true believers. They simply will not go there.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif
These
"scientists" actually claim that doing a C-14 test on
non-fossilized, flexible tissue from the cretaceous period is
NOT SCIENCE! [img width=240
height=120]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
You don't believe me? Listen to a world famous Dinosaur fossil
hunter Jack Horner being asked to do a C-14 test on flexible
dino tissue found in cretaceous period strata:
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T3rEX4zq_4&feature=player_embedded
Here are some scientific, not creationist, HARD DATA VIDEOS:
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVVZ-H4Xk9I&feature=player_embedded
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVzb_Pxot7s&feature=player_embedded
What's the take away from all the above?
1) Fossilization is normal in abnormal circumstances like peat
bogs and rapid sedimentation which eliminates oxidation of
organic matter. Otherwise the organic matter is recycled by the
biosphere. Bear in mind that this means the ENTIRE natural
history of speciation diversity on planet earth as constructed
by evolutionists comes from less than 5% of the life forms that
have existed simply because 95% of them successfully were
recycled by the biosphere! How these scientists could make such
sweeping assumptions about a mere 5% or less of the "geologic
column record" data is arrogance personified. And I didn't come
up with that bit about fossils being an anomaly, the evolution
believing paleontologists of mainstream science did. I agree
with them on that. ;D
2) All cretaceous period fossils are found, like those in
Madagascar, in a place that underwent a catastrophic amount of
rapid sedimentation which instantly buried the dinosaurs meters
below the atmosphere underground.
3) The chemistry of the ground had to be non-porous in order to
prevent fossilization(bones turn to rock through mineralization)
so organic tissue (containing carbon) could be preserved. This
is extremely rare.
4) The fossil record will only show animals that died
catastrophically, period. When their is no catastrophe, nature
recycles 100% of organic matter.
5) If any of the recovered tissue from plants or animals in the
geologic strata has C-14 present, they cannot have died more
than 100,000 years ago. Evidence of this would be a
"catastrophe" for the present interpretation of the age of the
strata in the geological column throughout the planet.
6) If the evidence continues to pile up against the current
multimillion year paradigm age of various strata, no change in
the scientific consensus will occur until the current crop of
scientists dies off and is replaced by new ones. The current
crop cannot handle being so abysmally wrong. So it goes.
Here 's some proof for you readers of the sad fact that
scientists are as stubborn and resistant to change when proven
wrong as any other turf defending human group.
The Death Of President Garfield, 1881
President Garfield died from infection due to lack of antiseptic
practices, not from a gun shot wound.
[quote]Surgery without Anesthesia
Garfield's physicians did not serve him well. It seems each of
his 16 attendants wanted to literally get their hands into him -
to prod and grope his wound in an attempt to find the elusive
bullet. Infection invariable set in. Internal sores developed -
oozing pus and requiring periodic lancing in order to reduce
their size. Medicine had not yet fully accepted the relationship
between germs and disease.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
Operations were routinely performed without benefit of surgical
gloves, masks, sterile instruments, or any antiseptics to
protect the patient. [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png[/img]
Of more immediate concern to the patient, operations were
performed without any means of deadening the pain. ??? The
patient was left to his or her own devices to cope with the
trauma of surgery. >:(
[/quote].
HTML http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/gar.htm
That bit of COVER for the Medical Doctors of 1881 (i.e.
"Medicine had not yet fully accepted the relationship between
germs and disease") is BALONEY!
Pasteur, several decades before, proved that germs cause
gangrene and claimed they were responsible for infections.
Lister read Pasteur's stuff, tested antiseptic procedures on his
patients and, in 1867, a full FOURTEEN YEARS before Garfield was
shot, published the results in the Lancent. This medical journal
HAD to have been read by any leading doctor in the USA. They
just refused to change. :P Even Lister, before he read Pasteur
and performed experiments, did not wash before surgery and
routinely performed operations in his street clothes. And if you
really want to see how SCIENCE dragged its feet on the empirical
evidence that antiseptic procedures saved lives, read about the
Hungarian doctor that was killed in a looney bin because he
SUCCESSFULLY saved the lives of pregnant women by requiring the
doctors that performed autopsies washy their hands and change
they robes before going upstairs to deliver babies!
[quote]gnaz Semmelweis
According to Wikipedia*, "Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (July 1, 1818
- August 13, 1865) was the Hungarian physician who demonstrated
that puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") was
contagious and that its incidence could be drastically reduced
by enforcing appropriate hand-washing behavior by medical
care-givers. He made this discovery in 1847 while working in the
Maternity Department of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital. His
failure to convince his fellow doctors led to a tragic
conclusion, however, he was ultimately vindicated.
Semmelweis realized that the number of cases of puerperal fever
was much larger at one of his wards than at the other. After
testing a few hypotheses, he found that the number of cases was
drastically reduced if the doctors washed their hands carefully
before dealing with a pregnant woman. Risk was especially high
if they had been in contact with corpses before they treated the
women. The germ theory of disease had not yet been developed at
the time. Thus, Semelweiss concluded that some unknown
"cadaveric material" caused childbed fever.
He lectured publicly about his results in 1850, however, the
reception by the medical community was cold, if not hostile. His
observations went against the[i] current scientific opinion of
the time, which blamed diseases on an imbalance of the basical
"humours" in the body. It was also argued that even if his
findings were correct, washing one's hands each time before
treating a pregnant woman, as Semmelweis advised, would be too
much work.
Nor were doctors eager to admit that they had caused so many
deaths. Semmelweis spent 14 years developing his ideas and
lobbying for their acceptance, culminating in a book he wrote in
1861. The book received poor reviews, and he responded with
polemic.
In 1865, he suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to
an insane asylum where he soon died from blood poisoning.
Only after Dr. Semmelweis's death was the germ theory of disease
developed, and he is now recognized as a pioneer of antiseptic
policy and prevention of nosocomial disease."
[/i][/quote]
HTML http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blantisceptics.htm
Agelbert Note: The head doctor at the hospital was the one that
led the effort to have him committed and the guards at the
looney bin beat him severely before he dies of "blood
poisoning". >:(
THINK about this stuff, people! The SCIENCE points to
antiseptics being great and the doctors refuse to DO IT for
nearly half a CENTURY! Don't tell me they did not KNOW about
Semmelweis, Pasteur and Lister!
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif
The geologists and paleontologists clinging to the multimillion
year old strata paradigm are being showered with evidence that
they MUST accept that, regardless of how many billions of years
old this planet is, the age of the fossils in the strata is WAY
OFF! :o It's embarrassing, to put I mildly.
But this new war is NOT about science at all, but about the
challenge to the random universe paradigm. Consider the very
real possibility that a race of super intelligent ETs seeded
this planet and we are just a giant petri dish. The periodic
rapid crustal movements (see Hapgood theory supported by
Einstein) would cause extinction events from giant several mile
high tsunamis that instantly buried a bunch of dinosaurs at one
point.
At another point a large asteroid could have smacked the earth
and created the pacific ocean basin, expanded the planet,
reduced the rotation speed, increased the gravity so creatures
couldn't be so large and created the rings of fire with mountain
chains around the earth. Each time, the ETs would step in and
do some intelligent design.
Another, more milder crustal movement after the last ice age,
might have been responsible for freezing those mammoths in
Russia with summer flowering plants in their stomachs.
I'm not happy with that theory but I recognize that, from the
present evidence, it is a highly probable scenario. That's even
more humiliating than a creator God having done it!
So the scientific community will fight it until a new crop can
figure a way to accept the C-14 data without requiring a
creator. The oscillating universes theory is the one I think
they will use because probability and statistics, like time for
this or that to evolve, don't apply. How convenient. :)
Whatever they come up with, they will NOT be able to dance
around the presence of C-14 in dino bones, mosquito gut blood
from the alleged cenozoic period
(
HTML http://cryptozoologynews.blogspot.com/2013/10/rare-blood-engorged-mosquito-fossil.html),<br
/>coal and even diamonds for much longer.
Humans are REALLY GOOD at RATIONALIZATION! It's not so much
about objective reality or science; it's mostly about endowment
bias (i.e. PRIDE).
[quote]
Giant asteroid, mega-tsunami may have triggered Ice Age
By Rachael Bayliss
Cosmos Online
A 2km-wide asteroid that hit Earth 2.5 million years ago may
have triggered the Ice Age, according to a team of Australian
researchers.
Asteroid impact artist's concept
Artist's concept of a catastrophic asteroid impact with the
early Earth. Credit: Don Davis / NASA
LONDON: A 2km-wide asteroid that hit Earth 2.5 million years ago
may have triggered the Ice Age, according to a team of
Australian researchers.
The monstrous Eltanin asteroid plunged into the Pacific Ocean
2.5 million years ago and generated a mega-tsunami with waves
hundreds of feet high, wreaking devastation across the globe. It
is the only identified deep-ocean impact in our planet’s
history, and could prove to be as significant as the asteroid
that wiped out the dinosaurs.
While previously little has been known about Eltanin and its
subsequent impact on Earth, a team of Australian researchers has
painstakingly gathered data from around the world to piece
together the puzzle.
Inconceivably large waves
“The Eltanin asteroid seems to have largely been overlooked
because it was a deep-ocean impact and so there is no
easy-to-access crater to remind scientists about this event,”
said James Goff, lead author of the paper published in the
Journal of Quaternary Science.
The beginning of the Pleistocene epoch was marked by significant
climate change and cooling of the planet, and recent refinement
of dates shows that the Eltanin impact coincided with this.
Computer models demonstrate that an asteroid collision of this
magnitude would have generated a tsunami with inconceivably
large waves.
“A deep-ocean impact of this size would have thrown a lot of
things into the stratosphere,” said Goff, who is co-director of
the Australia-Pacific Tsunami Research Centre at the University
of New South Wales in Sydney.
This would create additional problems after the initial
destruction of the mega-tsunami – with so much water vapour in
the atmosphere, sunlight would have been drastically reduced and
the surface temperature would start to plummet, kick-starting an
intense period of glaciation.
“All the pieces started to come together”
“If the Eltanin impact was a major driver of climate change …
then it may have been one of the key drivers of the Pleistocene
Northern Hemisphere glaciations, which in turn had implications
for human evolution,” said Goff.
To help solve the mystery, Goff and his colleagues at UNSW
collaborated with researchers at the Australian Nuclear and
Science Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
The team analysed previous research carried out by institutions
worldwide. Focussing on that time period, all the existing
evidence of possible Eltanin tsunami sediment deposits in
Antarctica, Chile and New Zealand were compiled and studied.
“All the pieces started to come together and, about a billion
papers later, the questions have at least been able to be framed
in a way that they can be asked in a high impact, peer-reviewed
journal,” said Goff.
To develop the theory further, more sites with possible Eltanin
tsunami deposits need to be investigated to see more clearly the
scale of the event. This will in turn provide more data for the
models predicting the extent to which such an impact could alter
the climate.
“At the moment [the research] hasn’t altered a thing, but we
hope that our colleagues will read the paper and consider the
question of the significance of the Eltanin impact to not only
their research, but also the work of others – and consider it as
a possible explanation,” Goff said.
.
HTML http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/giant-asteroid-triggered-ice-age/[/quote]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
#Post#: 688--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: January 12, 2014, 11:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TCtmoyBaI&feature=player_embedded
Nice video. ;D My only beef with these creationists is not
their arguments against evolution, which are rational, science
based and logical. It's the deep end stuff where they try to say
that the flood written about in Noah was the ONLY world
catastrophe and that the Genesis account of a 6 literal day
creation is the real deal. They refuse to entertain the
possibility that the planet was here billions of years before we
were created. They refuse to admit the possibility that God
would step in and do some intelligent design after a series of
catastrophes like the Permian extinction and the K-T boundary
evidence of extinction and a massive flood, to name just two
extinction level events. They KNOW that's WAY OUT THERE and they
can't prove it but they flat refuse to consider the possibility
that the bible is wrong on WHEN God created us even if it is
quite right about the fact that all life was intelligently
designed by God.
In my view these people are extremists pushing people away from
Christ, something the Apostle Paul pointed out thousands of
years ago about intolerant, legalistic Jews that claimed you
weren't "right with God" unless you crossed all the "T"s and
dotted all the "I"s in the MOSAIC LEVITICAL LAW.
When I wrote some of the "luminaries" above in the video and
told them the Pharisees believed in a six day creation and the
inerrancy of the old testament and it didn't do them any good,
they REFUSED to even debate that issue.
They have their own Achilles Heel; it's call Pharisaic Legalism.
They worship old testament of the bible, not God. >:(
I suppose they are doing some good by challenging the
evolutionary fairy tale but going in the other extreme is just
wrong. The bible has always been about proper, harmonious
behavior among fellow men and nature as EVIDENCE of our belief
in a just God.
Any time people in the bible started killing people and things
that got in the way of their RELIGION, they screwed up.
A pox on all these stuffed shirts that think humans can follow
rules. The "rules" were given to Moses to PROVE humans are
incapable of following them, not to be used to finger point at
each other.
Legalism leads to judgementalism which leads to war, cruelty and
killing. The creationists that think the bible is a scientific
document are not doing the Gospel of Jesus Christ any good. I
told them so and got banned. So it goes.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201604.png
#Post#: 696--------------------------------------------------
Natural Selection is DEvolution, not Evolution
By: AGelbert Date: January 13, 2014, 10:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kauai’s silent nights (the crickets have gone quiet)
by David Catchpoole
kauai
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2OnU5WQjluE/TKQkRFk7_HI/AAAAAAAAAK0/sfZ_bf6RiVI/s1600/Cricket%2Bchirping.jpg[/img]
Crickets, renowned for their distinctively loud chirping song
penetrating the night, feature prominently in Polynesian
folklore and traditions. But on the Hawaian island of Kauai, the
crickets have fallen silent.
The reason?
The larvae burrow into the cricket and devour it—a week later,
the cricket is dead.
In the 1990s, a deadly parasitic fly arrived from North America.
This “acoustically orienting” fly tracks down male crickets
calling for mates (only male crickets chirp) and deposits its
eggs on them.1 The larvae burrow into the cricket and devour
it—a week later, the cricket is dead.
The impact of the fly was dramatic, as the cricket population on
Kauai plummeted. By 2001, the island was “virtually silent”—a
university research team heard only one cricket call.2
In 2003, Kauai was still silent. But researchers were surprised
to discover that crickets hadn’t been wiped out.3 They found
plenty of crickets in fact.4 But they didn’t chirp.5
On closer examination, “virtually all” of Kauai’s male crickets
were found to have wings more like female wings than normal male
wings, i.e. “lacking the normal stridulatory apparatus of file
and scraper required for sound production”—hence why they
couldn’t chirp.4 In normal males, the wings have a prominent
toothy vein that is scraped to make sound. But now, in most
males the vein was smaller and in a different position. Females
don’t have the toothed vein at all.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://beacon-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Flatwing_Mutation.jpg[/img]
Not surprisingly, this discovery was heralded by many media
organizations and the researchers themselves as
‘evolution’.2,3,6 “This is seeing evolution at work,”
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
lead
researcher Marlene Zuk said.5
But the information they themselves provided about the observed
facts of the case (as opposed to evolutionary interpretation)
was sufficient to show that it is not ‘evolution’ at all, in the
chemicals-to-cells-to-crickets sense, which requires an increase
in complexity and genetic information. Rather, there has been a
loss of information (the ability to chirp) because of
degradation of the genome.
The silent males were mutants, with the ‘flatwing’ trait being
caused by “a mutation to a single gene located on the crickets’
X chromosome.”2Researchers made it clear that the
silence-conferring mutation was “not part of the quantitative
genetic background of song itself but, instead, a morphological
mutation that eliminates males’ ability to produce this sexual
signal.”7
This is not evidence for an evolutionary process said to have
produced chirping crickets from chancy chaos, no matter how much
time is claimed …
So, despite the ‘fogging’ of the facts by evolutionary-paradigm
jargon, the story is quite simple—and anything but evolutionary.
A loss-of-information flatwing mutation which would presumably
normally be a disadvantage (rendering male crickets unable to
call acoustically for a mate) became highly advantageous once
the acoustically-navigating parasitic fly came to Kauai.8 This
is not evidence for an evolutionary process said to have
produced chirping crickets from chancy chaos, no matter how much
time is claimed for it to have happened. The Kauai change is in
the wrong direction to be evidence of microbes-to-man evolution.
Instead, it fits with the biblical description of a created
world now in “bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–22).
And other things fit, too. The Hawaiian cricket populations had
“extremely low genetic variation” compared to crickets in
Australia, with Pacific Islands populations being intermediate.9
This hints at the crickets’ likely island-hopping colonization
route to Hawaii (perhaps partially matching that of Polynesian
settlers—who seem to have had an affinity with crickets10), with
the progressive reduction in gene pool variation consistent with
an original higher-level creation, not evolution. A cricket
subset of the gene pool, once isolated from its parent
population, cannot of itself regain the starting level of
genetic information. ‘Evolution’ can’t do it.
Note that there is no doubt here that natural selection is
operating, and powerfully. But natural selection is not
evolution, as it can only remove individuals (in this case,
chirping ones), and thus the genetic information they carry
(coding for chirp-capable wings),11 from a population; it cannot
provide new genetic information. And it is not the trumpeted
‘rapid evolution’ that is being observed here,12 but the rapid
culling of cricket songsters under the deadly selection pressure
of being fresh food for fly maggots—natural selection does not
need long periods of time to achieve outcomes as dramatic as
this—the virtual silencing of a population.13,14
If only more people knew that examples of natural selection such
as the Kauai crickets were in no way evidence for evolution but
rather evidence for the Creator God of the Bible—now that would
be something to chirp about.
HTML http://creation.com/kauai-silent-crickets
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page