Search This Blog

Monday, May 23, 2011

An essay on the remarkably complex design of life, the cell, the Universe as a glory to God!

I would love to teach a sixth grade Biology course.  It would be fun to get them thinking about the wonders of living beings and maybe inspire a few to go on to careers in science.  On my first day I would have a great deal of fun with them.  First, I would remind them that they are, statistically, never more than 8 feet away from at least one spider at all times.  The girls would shudder and the boys would giggle.  I might go on about that for awhile.  Spiders on the ground, in cracks, on the ceiling, in plants, floating in the air...I might ask them to go on a tour of the room and see if they could find a spider or a web left behind by a spider...without touching one, as there are sometimes Brown Recluse in this area.  Maybe a brave girl or two would jump up to look along with some of the boys?   I suspect when my wife was a young girl she would jump up to find any living creature at any time.  Other than flies and mosquitoes and stinging insects, that is...and I suppose cockroaches.  Don't have any of those, thankfully!

Then I would ask them how many parts of the human body can be counted and just ask about cells.  Do you realize you are made up of a great number of cells?  How many do you suppose?   Once they answered, I would tell them they actually were made up of about ten trillion or so cells.   But then each cell is made up of an amazing number of different parts working together to keep them alive so that the number of components in one person is almost unfathomably large.



I would explain to the class that a human cells are much like a giant factory, with all sorts of different operations going on at once and that each of their cells would be a lot like the Subaru factory down I-65 from us a ways.  So how many parts does a human have?   Trillions upon trillions of parts!  We are amazingly complex organisms!

Then I would ask them how many living organisms are in the room.  They would likely count heads, toss in a few spiders and maybe say 40 or 80 or even 100.   Let's say the class has 20 students plus myself.   That is when I would tell them that they probably have at least ten microorganisms for every cell in their bodies.  100 trillion or so bacteria and other microflora and microfauna living in them and on them.  We are all like big planets with trillions of inhabitants.   In fact, we need bacteria to live!


Bacteria: More Good than Bad and Ugly

by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D.

Many times when people think of bacteria they associate them with disease. Commercials abound for cleaning wipes that sterilize (kill) “99.5%” of bacteria and viruses on household surfaces. However, the reality is that only 10% of bacteria are “bad” or pathogenic (disease-causing) while the other 90% are “good” or non-pathogenic. In fact, they are necessary components for human life.

Bacteria and You

Many times bacteria are found to live in symbiotic relationships with other organisms. “They [bacteria] receive room and board in exchange for labour and chemical currency” (typically in the form of nutrients).1 Bacteria play a very important role in the large intestine. In the womb, babies are essentially sterile but by the age of 2 have acquired through their environment the complement of bacteria that will inhabit their gut throughout adulthood, also known as gut flora.1 “The human gut houses a staggering 10 to 100 trillion microbes from 500 to 1,000 species—more than 10 times the number of cells that make up the human body.”1 So essentially, you are more bacteria than human!

Gut flora are responsible for aiding in digestion (they have enzymes to breakdown foodstuffs that we don’t) and making vitamins. Another important function they serve is usually not noticed until the gut flora is killed by taking well-intentioned antibiotics for an infection. Sometimes people will suffer from what is referred to as antibiotic-associated diarrhea. When many of the “good” bacteria are killed by the antibiotics, the “bad” bacteria can gain a foothold and cause diarrhea.

Gut flora are in constant competition with pathogenic bacteria (acquired through the environment) for nutrients. Gut flora can alter the gut environment making it unsuitable for growth by pathogenic bacteria. They also produce bacteriocins, which are chemicals that kill other bacteria. Competition among bacteria is very important for keeping populations of pathogenic bacteria in check. So think twice about using those antibiotic wipes for general cleaning—a sterile environment is not a good thing!

A recent study found that “skin harbors at least 182 species of bacteria, many of which were previously unknown.”2 Differences in the complement of bacteria on the skin were found between individuals (more than 71% were unique to an individual) and between men and women.2 Again, one of their main roles may be competition to keep the numbers of “bad” bacteria low.


Exposure to bacteria early in life has also been linked to lower incidences of allergies in children. Children who live on farms (supposedly exposing themselves to many bacteria by working with animals and being outside) are less likely to develop allergies than children not living on farms.3 Allergies are caused by the body overreacting to a foreign agent (such as pollen, dust, etc.). The bacteria are thought to “train” the immune system to react appropriately. So the next time you see your kid stuffing their mouth full of dirt, stay calm and think about all the “training” their immune system is getting.

Consuming Bacteria Can Be Good for You

The term probiotics (literally “for life”) refers to dietary supplements that contain live cultures of bacteria or yeast. Many dairy products, such as yogurt and milk, are considered probiotics. Dannon has recently marketed a yogurt which contains the bacteria Bifidus Regularis [sic], which the company claims helps to regulate your digestive system.4 Probiotics are sort of the Rid-X of the human septic system. The bacteria that compose the probiotics do not remain in the body permanently but may be effective when normal gut flora has been diminished. Research on probiotics is preliminary, but their market worth ranges in the billions. Probiotics are currently being investigated for their effectiveness in curing obesity, colitis, colon cancer, and irritable bowel syndrome.1,5

Conclusion

Although unseen and often given a bad rap, most bacteria are not a detriment to human life but rather necessary for human life. Although the Fall has affected bacteria (as everything else) resulting in mutations that can lead to bacteria that cause disease, this was not part of God’s original design. Fortunately, much of God’s original design of beneficence can still be seen in these microscopic wonders that inhabit our gut, skin, and every environment on planet earth.

~~~~~~~

Yes, the constant drumbeat of commercials warning Moms about scrubbing and sanitizing their homes to protect their families is counterintuitive.   We don't appreciate the ordinary bacteria that live in us, on us and around us.  Kill off too many of the ordinary ones and it makes a way for extraordinary ones to cause you harm or death.

We are assembled according to coding.  Mankind is a completely designed organism.  While it is a mystery to Darwinists where the life and information come from, creationists know that God invested life into living creatures and invented the coding and assembly processes and provided the information required to allow for self-replication and the preservation of kind by contingencies and redundancies built into the creatures.









So there is so much going on within cells it is mind-blowing.  Now here comes a good part:  Mutations.  Darwinists like to give credit to mutations for helping some mythical first living cell evolve into all the various forms and kinds of life on the planet today?   Yet mutations are actually harmful and deleterious to organisms and much of the careful planning and design of the cell concerns countering the potential damaging effects of mutations.






After having demonstrated to the class how remarkably complex we are, I would then go another way and ask them what substance are we most made of...what kind of "stuff?"  After serveral guesses someone would say "water" and I would say, yes, correct.  But then if we looked at the body with eyes that could see all the tiniest little fragments of us, the subatomic particles and all that we know, what would we most consist of?   It would be empty space!   Actually not only me, but the chair you sit on and the walls of your house are more empty space than particles of matter!

So we are made of so much more than we appear to be made of and there is so much more than just a human being there, every person is a planet that harbors 100 trillion or so passengers in their cruise through life.  Yet we are more water than anything else on one level and if you really look hard at us, we are more nothing than anything...which then brings us to the question of nothing.  Is nothing really nothing?   Is there actually such a thing as nothing in place in the material world?  Nature abhors a vaccum they say, and even so-called empty space is inhabited by time and is said to bend.  What we perceive as nothing may indeed be the underlying fabric to everything.   

God has said that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and I have to agree.   Having studied many of the metaphysical philosophers that liberal universities hold up as great thinkers, I have to say that they tend to miss the main point.   The Universe is by definition everything.   Yet we can see that it had a beginning and is headed for an end.   Thus, the Creator of the Universe must exist and the Creator of the Universe must not be material or bound by time, but rather be the inventor of both time and space.  This is a job for God.  Only a supernatural Being could turn nothing into everything.  In fact, before there was everything there was no nothing, because nothing is a concept that is relational to time and space and time and space did not exist until God decided to create them.  God didn't start with just a tiny little bit of something and BOOM everything into existence and He didn't need 15 billion years and millions of years of death and destruction to bring today into being.

Just think about it a minute.  You have great powers yourself.  Right now you could sit down at your computer and write an essay using maybe Microsoft Word and then print it out and turn it in as an assignment.  Or, you could go find some formation with graphite from which you would extract enough to make a crude pencil rod and then find a good stick, split it down the middle, hollow it out a little and lay the graphite rod inside.   Then you would need to figure how to bind it all together.  Next, you would take more wood and grind it and smush it and mix it and then dry it out in a layer to try to make a crude form of paper.  Or perhaps you would strip some bark off of a paper birch if one was close at hand.  Now all you have to do is invent some kind of language to enable you to write your thoughts out on the crude document that you have crafted and then teach others how to communicate in that same language so they can understand your writings and...

Wait a minute!   You are NOT going to do all that stuff, you are going to sit down at the computer and type up your essay and print the stupid thing out!   When you have the ability to do something simply and well, why do something crude and difficult by painstaking means and long, difficult hours and even days?   Well, you don't because you are not stupid.   God is not stupid.  He had and has the ability to speak the entire Universe into existence and so why in the world would He use billions of years?   

When a person assumes that the Universe is billions of years old and that he knows more than God, he is saying God is stupid.  If a person accepts that God's Word is true and that the billions of years isn't what it appears to be, he is saying God is true.  Wise people accept that God tells the truth and accept that some things will be quite hard to understand.  

Think about it, if you take away the idea of the concept of a Universe that is billions of years old just because of one measurement, then everything we see on and around Earth fits the Bible quite nicely.   There is only one problem with believing the Bible and that is the appearance of great age for the Universe.  That is it.  Nothing else, really.

Meanwhile, Darwinists cannot explain life or information or account for how organisms work.  They cannot explain the irreducible complexity of life on the planet.  The more we learn, the more we discover symbiotic relationships everywhere, the more remarkable brilliance of the design features of organisms we try to copy and the more we test macroevolution, the more it fails to happen.   How long will you let one measurement keep you from seeing the obvious:   Only a brilliant Creator could have made the remarkable Universe and the wide variety of complex organisms that inhabit our planet. 

You are mostly nothing.  Except that nothing isn't nothing.  You are mainly water but you don't pool on the floor.  You are one person but you are 100 trillion cells and your have ten microorganisms hitchhiking on and inside of you for every one of those cells!  But even when you say all of those things you still haven't found you.  Are you the firing synapses of your brain, the beating of your heart, the inhaling of the lungs?  Even if you are all of those things, you are packed with information and we know it is there but we cannot take it out and look at it because it doesn't have a material form.  Even though you know you are alive, we cannot reach in and find the "life' part of you and take it out and look at it.  So life itself has no material form.  Finally there is the essence of self.  Unlike animals and plants, you are not only self-aware and others-aware, you are aware of abstracts and can be creative because you are, like the God who created you, a three-part entity.   Body, soul and spirit.  We can define the body and count the parts of it but we cannot locate the soul life that breathes in and out nor the spirit of man who can take flights of fancy to imaginary places at imaginary times and perceive things unseen and unheard.  

From the Biblos website:

Webster's Bible Translation
To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth the work of his hands.

Webster's Bible Translation
I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: wonderful are thy works; and that my soul well knoweth.


Now just for fun, a movie about the ribosome from the cell.  Yippee!!!


31 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

He had and has the ability to speak the entire Universe into existence and so why in the world would He use billions of years?

Well, why not?

How long will you let one measurement keep you from seeing the obvious:

If that measurement is correct ...

Only a brilliant Creator could have made the remarkable Universe and the wide variety of complex organisms that inhabit our planet.

Remember Rule 15. Case in point:

http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-worlds-longest-cells-speculations-on-the-nervous-systems-of-sauropods/

radar said...

Since the paper assumes evolution and doesn't account for differing functions from similar starting points which is indicative of a common designer, just exactly why did you link that article?

While some guy like P Z Myers sits in his comfy chair critiquing God's design, he couldn't begin to tell you why he is able to think or when his last breath will come.

Perhaps you are aware that cell size is limited by the ratio of surface area to volume? This is why we don't have anything like a giant Blob-like giant one celled creatures. The larger the cell, the less surface space compared to volume where nutrients and offal are exchanged.

Dinosaurs and other large pre-Flood creatures benefited from an atmosphere richer in oxygen, thus allowing for larger cells and also apparently didn't have the "aging switch" turned on until just before the Flood. So men quit living for multiple hundreds of years and saurians couldn't live long enough to reach such stupendous pre-Flood sizes even if they could have survived in the antediluvian world at such a size.

By the way, if giraffes evolved their necks, how did they invent the clever series of valves that keep the blood pressure to the brain the same when the head is held several feet above the heart and then when the head moves down quickly to obtain a drink? And how would the system that allows a drinking giraffe to suddenly look up and run from a predator happen? The giraffe neck is a marvelous feat of engineering.

In fact it is presumptuous of humans to determine what is and isn't bad design and process in organisms, as we have yet to produce anything as efficient and functional as living organisms. In fact large numbers of real scientists are studying and copying nature's designs for human use. Microengineers will admit that organisms are designed so well they have a great deal of trouble coming close to mimicry for human use. You have heard of Biomimetics, yes? Biomimicry> Nanoengineering?

The man who calls God a bad designer has more cojones than inteligente. Long-debunked arguments about the pharyngeal arches of developing organisms are a sad testimony to the bankruptcy of Darwinist thought.

Jon Woolf said...

just exactly why did you link that article?

Go back and read the whole article, Radar. Including the part about why the recurrent laryngeal nerves are so long.

By the way, if giraffes evolved their necks, how did they invent the clever series of valves that keep the blood pressure to the brain the same when the head is held several feet above the heart and then when the head moves down quickly to obtain a drink?

They didn't. They modified a system of one-way valves and pressure-control muscles that is present in all mammals.

My turn. If giraffes were intentionally designed to have long necks, the same as sauropods, then why do giraffes have only the same seven cervical vertebrae that almost all other mammals have, instead of the many more cervical vertebrae that sauropods had?

creeper said...

"He had and has the ability to speak the entire Universe into existence and so why in the world would He use billions of years?"

Radar, you're a Christian. Isn't God by his very nature incomprehensible/a mystery? And isn't something like "billions of years" a trifle to God?

Let's compare your statement above with one of your statements from another comment section:

"God being outside of the material world is not subject to the laws of a temporal, material creation that He made. [...] God is not just greater, He is beyond the material world."

You're professing a belief in something utterly beyond our conception on the one hand while, on the other hand, restricting that same concept to a very small-minded, limited human way of thinking.

The non-creationist commenters on this blog have on occasion been lambasted by I think it was Highboy when the subject of "bad design" came up, with the criticism that since we didn't understand God or his intentions, we couldn't identify bad design with our limited human understanding.

The obvious retort to that of course is that given such an incomprehensible being, we can't identify design, period.

But it goes further than that: you also can't presume that such a creator would find it expedient to do something in seven literal days rather than billions of years. It's possible that there are advantages to doing it over billions of years. It's possible that "advantages" don't matter to this creator, that they're completely alien to such a creator's way of thinking.

Isn't it somewhat closed-minded of you to discard such possibilities?

-- creeper

radar said...

Woolf, you had me at "They modified a system of one-way valves and pressure-control muscles that is present in all mammals."

THEY MODIFIED? Giraffes decided to modify their necks? This is the language of Darwinists. Fish wanted to walk so they developed legs. Cows wanted to go into the water so they developed fins. Dinosaurs modified scales into feathers. Listen to yourself!

Creeper, the Bible is a record of history that is remarkable for its endurance, consistency and accuracy. In that Bible is the record of Who God is, not someone's opinion passed around the campfire. I do not presume to tell God how to build a Universe but rather He told me in Genesis that He did it, how long it took and in what order.

Anonymous said...

So it appears that Darwin himself actually solved your Giraffe question, Radar. I guess you would have known this had you actually read anything on modern evolution not provided by your YEC masters. From a site that shall not be named,

"Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth."

There. Now you know and can't pretend you haven't been told.

Oh and do you really think this kind of mini-rant actually helps your cause?

"Giraffes decided to modify their necks? This is the language of Darwinists. Fish wanted to walk so they developed legs. Cows wanted to go into the water so they developed fins. Dinosaurs modified scales into feathers. Listen to yourself!"

Seriously though, YOU should listen to YOURSELF, because you are the only one saying things like this. Nobody, other than a brainwashed creationist attempting to draw up a strawman says that "Giraffes DECIDED to modify their necks?". You realize that you dishonestly added an entire word to what Jon said, right? I mean, seriously, would you just stop with the dishonesty already. Cant you see that by constantly misrepresenting evolution, you end up doing the opposite of what you want to accomplish on this blog? You discredit all YEC's by peddling lies, thus adding credence to the opposing viewpoint. That said, YEC is complete bunk so maybe you should just keep up the good work. :)

Oh and finally, regarding your assertion that

"I do not presume to tell God how to build a Universe but rather He told me in Genesis that He did it, how long it took and in what order."

If, like you say, he "told you in genesis", why is it that the vast majority of christians disagree with you. Even your pal hb doesn't agree with your assessment of genesis, and as far as I can tell he's your most supportive "reader". Tell us radar, how is it that you are so smart, and everyone else is so stupid? And how, exactly, does this fit with your much bragged about "humility"?

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Canucklehead, I fear you do not know enough about giraffes to speak to the unique engineering required to allow them to lift their heads many feet up in the air or swoop down to take a drink without either passing out from lack of oxygenated blood to the brain or exploding their blood vessels from the increased pressure, so therefore your rant is completely unfounded and without merit.

creeper said...

"Since the paper assumes evolution and doesn't account for differing functions from similar starting points which is indicative of a common designer, just exactly why did you link that article?"

Radar, could you please explain the thought process by which you came to conclude that "differing functions from similar starting points" might be incompatible with evolution?

Seems to me that what you're describing would be something that Mr. Charles Darwin would agree with whole-heartedly.

So on what basis do you think "differing functions from similar starting points" are indicative of a common designer when they so clearly also line up with the theory of evolution?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Giraffes decided to modify their necks?"

Ah, misrepresentations again. Lista, pay careful heed.

"This is the language of Darwinists. Fish wanted to walk so they developed legs. Cows wanted to go into the water so they developed fins. Dinosaurs modified scales into feathers. Listen to yourself!"

If you're as smart as you proclaim yourself to be, you'd surely know that this is not the language of Darwinists, but of Lamarckianists. It has nothing to do with Darwin's approach to evolution.

Listen to yourself, Radar. If you're as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be making this kind of amateur mistake.

-- creeper

radar said...

Actually, creeper, I was quoting Jon Woolf. So your problem with that language would be with him. But you are wrong about Lamarckism. Lamarkism is the idea that a developed trait or accident can be passed on - a man who lifts weights and gets exceedingly strong would have muscular sons, a frog losing a leg while escaping from the grasp of a pike would have three-legged offspring and etc.

The wishful thinking expressed by Mr. Woolf is that creatures simply develop traits that would benefit them without any mechanism by which they could do this. Natural selection, you say? No.

Natural selection is like this: You go to a restaurant and you are given a menu. You can order something from the menu but, if it is not on the menu you cannot have it. Dogs may have both perky ears and floppy ears on their menus, but not retractable claws. Giraffes can choose from long necks and longer necks but there are no gills on their menus. A fish has gills included with every order and so they choose between sizes and color and perhaps even stripes or no stripes but there is no place on their menus for long necks.

Schohen is greatly mistaken. The original kinds had a full set of genetic information that has allowed for descendants to adjust to various changes in ecological conditions, predation, times of plenty, times of want, cold, hot, wet and dry.

You will find no cases of information being added during reproduction. It can be lost, duplicated, borrowed from another organism and broken by mutation but there will not be anything NEW observed. Furthermore, there is no chance at all that any one kind of organism will evolve into another kind since the mother puts the framework down for the offspring and of course the frame is another of her own kind.

The varieties of kinds of organisms that can be found within one baramin can be many, such as the dog kind. They can be few, such as the rather unique platypus. They can disappear from the planet entirely, such as the allosaurus. But no one can show us any new information within the genome.

Jon Woolf said...

You will find no cases of information being added during reproduction.

If you don't know how much information was there to start with, how can you tell if any was added? Or lost?

Giraffes decided to modify their necks?

That's not what I said. I said what happened, not that it was a conscious decision. (I should have known you'd leap on the informal wording like a fly on fresh honey; mea culpa.) It simply happened that - for some reason, which is still the subject of argument - ancestral giraffes found some benefit in having slightly longer necks. Neck length is one of those heritable traits that varies slightly in giraffes. It wasn't much of a difference -- an inch or two, maybe, or maybe even less -- and so it wasn't much of a benefit, but it was consistent and measurable and heritable, and that's all the evolutionary process needs to work. Generation by generation, giraffes with longer necks left more offspring than those with shorter necks. And so, generation by generation, the average neck length increased. Until it reached an optimal length where any additional benefit to a longer neck was balanced by other factors that favored shorter necks. And giraffe neck length has orbited round that 'sweet spot' ever since.

Jon Woolf said...

Natural selection is like this: You go to a restaurant and you are given a menu. You can order something from the menu but, if it is not on the menu you cannot have it.

So you admit that evolution has rules and limits, and doesn't say that things just !poof! into existence.

Good. You're making progress.

Anonymous said...

"I was quoting Jon Woolf. So your problem with that language would be with him."

You were misquoting Woolf. Could be an accident, could be intentional deceit. If it was by accident, you should set the record straight and admit your error.

AmericanVet said...

I didn't twist Woolf's words, I quoted them verbatim.

Furthermore I am not "making progress" because I have never changed the definition of evolution nor do I care. Evolution doesn't have rules and limits because it doesn't exist. It is a fantasy. I might just as well beging talking about the history of Middle Earth except that would be more interesting.

There is no evolution. There is only speciation.

Now, back to work.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I didn't twist Woolf's words, I quoted them verbatim."

You quoted them verbatim... and then distorted them, right here:

"THEY MODIFIED? Giraffes decided to modify their necks?"

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Furthermore I am not "making progress" because I have never changed the definition of evolution nor do I care. Evolution doesn't have rules and limits because it doesn't exist. It is a fantasy. I might just as well beging talking about the history of Middle Earth except that would be more interesting."

The usual empty bluster. If you're not aware of large chunks of science, then you can't very well argue against them effectively, can you?

"There is no evolution. There is only speciation."

Since speciation by definition is part of macroevolution, you're just descending into nonsense here.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Natural selection is like this: You go to a restaurant and you are given a menu. You can order something from the menu but, if it is not on the menu you cannot have it."

Not the worst analogy in the world, but you're leaving out the crucial aspect of mutations, copying errors etc.

AmericanVet said...

Speciation is NOT part of evolution. Speciation is when the organism selects from the pool of available genetic information during reproduction and the varieties most successful in that particular environment have their specific genes passed on.

Haven't your read up on genetic redundancies and facilitated variation? Have you learned about cell-drive distal switching? How about what we have discovered about meta-information and ERVs? How about the functionality of so-called "junk DNA?"

Mutations and copying errors and transferred information is nothing more than shuffling and breaking information. It isn't new information, it is just in new places or damaged in some way. Most of these are either fatal to the organism, damaging or are a common mutation for which a preexisting switch is built in to the organism. You never see new systems resulting from a mutation.

If your toddler drops a glass and it shatters on the floor, is that "new?"

scohen said...

"Haven't your read up on genetic redundancies and facilitated variation?"

You made me read up on facilitated variation, remember? I was the one who read the original (long) paper and discovered that the creationist's summary of it said things that the original paper didn't conclude.

And lookie here, now Wikipedia has a summary.

From the link above:
"The theory challenges Irreducible complexity by explaining how mutation can cause unusual changes within a species"

...and "By closing the major gap in Darwin’s theory Kirschner and Gerhart also provide a scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who champion "intelligent design""

You should really read the original sources.

Lastly, even though I'm more than a decade out of college, I vividly remember our professor calling it "Non-coding DNA" rather than 'Junk'.

scohen said...

"Speciation is NOT part of evolution."

Of course it is. Now you're just being silly. What was Darwin's book called again?

Again, pardon my quoting of wikipedia on the matter, but:

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

from here

I also looked for dictionary definitions and nearly all mentioned 'evolution' or 'evolve' in the first sentence.

scohen said...

"If your toddler drops a glass and it shatters on the floor, is that "new?""

I guess it depends on what you do with the pieces.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Speciation is NOT part of evolution. Speciation is when the organism selects from the pool of available genetic information during reproduction and the varieties most successful in that particular environment have their specific genes passed on."

What you're describing here sounds more like microevolution, which is not speciation. Speciation by definition is the origin of new species. And of course speciation is a part of evolution, and so is microevolution. Just because you agree with parts of the theory of evolution doesn't mean they're no longer a part of it.

"Mutations and copying errors and transferred information is nothing more than shuffling and breaking information. It isn't new information, it is just in new places or damaged in some way."

If a mutation or copying error turns out to have a new, useful function that is preserved through natural selection, then it is indeed new information.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Most of these are either fatal to the organism, damaging or are a common mutation for which a preexisting switch is built in to the organism."

It's not all that relevant if most fall under these categories. What matters is that sometimes a beneficial one comes along, which is then preserved through natural selection.

"You never see new systems resulting from a mutation."

Not full-blown, no. It's mostly in small, incremental changes.

AmericanVet said...

Speciation is not one kind of animal becoming another kind, it is variation within kind such as house cats, lions and bobcats. All are speciated versions of the original cat kind. Just because the ruling paradigm changes the meaning of a word doesn't make it true.

Gay used to mean very happy and carefree. Now it refers to homosexuals, whose rate of suicides, STDs and abusive relationships is hardly synonymous with happy. Liberal used to mean generous and forward-thinking. I mean generous with your own time or money, not that of everyone else. Christian used to mean a disciple of Christ, not just a label you take because your parents went to church once in awhile.

Study history and you will find that no new kinds of animals are ever observed to result from another kind. In the last couple of centuries scientists have diligently tried to help such a process along with no success. That is to be expected. Organisms were designed to conserve the kind by being capable of variation within the kind to adapt to various environmental conditions and yet remain a cat or dog or whale kind. That is what we observe. Organisms choose from the pre-existing genetic material to reproduce and the most successful children reproduce again. Just as they are designed to do.

AmericanVet said...

As for small, incremental changes this is simply an opinion. When we study incremental changes in organisms we also find that they had the information for the change already within the genome. Peppered moths can come in dark and light forms and they go back and forth in terms of the most successful variety but we never see them turn green or become hornets.

Galapagos finches have beaks that change according to conditions but they are just the same changes going back and forth. Mutations sometimes break a system so that organisms show a trait not usually seen but also those traits generally make it unlikely that the organism will live. Producing four-winged fruit flies in the lab was fine, but those flies couldnt' fly and could not survive in the wild. Citrase bacteria will have a disadvantage in the real world where normal bacteria will ingest the best nutrients and be more likely to survive in the wild. Mutation as an information source is a complete canard.

Mutations break things. Mutations duplicate the same information or remove information or sully information. Once upon a time I had a television with a loose connection back in the days of tubed televisions. I could tap it with a hammer in a certain spot and the connection would work for awhile. But the short was inside the tube board and I knew someday it would be beyond a simple love tap. Trust me, I couldn't fix it by smashing it with that hammer!

AmericanVet said...

It is an amazing thing that the Darwinists have managed to brainwash the general public and the news media and even the majority of scientists despite a lack of actual evidence. Darwinism is 100% speculation and 0% hard evidence. The only good evidence around points to Intelligent Design and as I always say, truth eventually gets out in the world of science.

Darwinism cannot fight off the real evidence much longer. One by one the canards are exposed. More and more scientists have the guts to stand up and say at the very least that Darwinism is not a good answer to the problem of the origin of life. Eventually the Big Bang will be exposed as a bad hypothesis as well. I think I know the last chapter...

Jon Woolf said...

"Mutations break things. "

Sometimes. Other times, they improve things -- such as the Italian wall-lizards that mutated in ways that allowed them to eat leaves, and so gain access to a new food source. Or the numerous weeds and insect pests that have mutated in ways that allow them to resist pesticides. Or the snakes that have mutated their venom in ways that makes it more lethal.

AmericanVet said...

Not mutation, variation within kind. No new information.

Jon Woolf said...

Can you prove that, Radar?

Of course not. Why do I even bother asking? You don't even know what information is, and you certainly have no way of measuring it. All you have is a blind assumption and a desperate need-to-believe that you're right and all of science is wrong.

So sad, to see a human mind wasted like that.

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/06/design-planning-purpose-within-cell.html

Jon, it is your mind to waste. If you want to believe in Darwinism that is yyour right. However -

1) Your complete failure to deal with information (you and your buddies) is now a permanent URL standing at the top of my links list. Information is not material in substance and form and it comes from intellect. No natural source of information has been detected. I was easily able to answer the dictionary definition of information and show the properties thereof...

2) If you want to believe in the magical Darwinist *poof* of the first cell, fine. But surely you think Mt. Rushmore was created by sandstorms and if there is a BMW parked in your driveway it must have evolved from the trash bin you put out last night? Both of those are more likely than a cell coming from natural undirected causes.

3) I have over these years shown time and time again how Darwinists lie to try to prop up their failed hypothesis. But what we are learning about the cell is going to get them.

Jon Woolf said...

"Your complete failure to deal with information (you and your buddies) is now a permanent URL standing at the top of my links list."

Hm? Oh, yes, I remember now -- that's the case where you threw a tantrum and deleted an entire post with all its comments because your silly claims had been beaten like a meringue. Then you reposted the original claims in a forum where no counter-arguments were allowed and proclaimed victory. Of course, if a "Darwinist" had done something like that you'd have labeled them a coward, and trumpeted it as proof that you were right and they knew it.

As ye do, so shall ye be done by.

Genetic information originates in genetic mutations. That's really all there is to it .. although one must always remember Rule 15.