Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

,

> Macroevolution is commonly given different definitions. Defining a

> tern is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when the flow

> of argument makes a premise dependent on the conclusion

The reason your argument is circular is because you have defined

macroevolutionary mechanisms in a very narrow and arbitrary way of

your own choosing, and your contention that macroevolutionary

mechanisms have not been observed rests directly on your arbitrary

definition of those mechanisms. Since paedomorphosis is considered to

be a fundamental mechanism of macroevolution by those who actually

advocate the theory, and is directly observed, this refutes your

contention that no mechanisms of macroevolution are observed. Since

you have arbitrarily put forth your *own* definition of the mechanisms

of macroevolution, however, you are able to contend that

paedomorphosis is no such mechanism, even when it is directly observed

to result in speciation that involves dramatic changes in mode of life

and morphology, because it does not conform to your own arbitrary

definition.

Although this is a simplification, the essence of your argument can be

summed as follows:

Macroevolution occurs through mechsanisms that are not observed;

therefore, the mechanisms of macroevolution have not been observed.

> as with the

> evolutionary model. For example, ages of sedimentary strata are dated

> by index fossils, and index fossils are dated by the strata. This is

> done independently of radiometric dating as already mentioned. Thus,

> the paleontologist refers to the geologist for dating the fossils, and

> the geologist refers to the paleontologist for dating the sedimentary

> rock strata.

Then the dating of these fossils rests on evolutionary assumptions.

It would be circular to argue that the dates are evidence for

evolution; anyone who would do this is an idiot. Unfortunately, you

manage to portray evolutionists as idiots by implying that they make

an argument such as this. While there are idiots in every corner of

the world, I have never actually seen an evolutionist argue that dates

for fossils determined directly with evolutionary assumptions is

evidence for evolution.

I am sure, however, that there are people who argue that the relative

placement of certain fossils in rock strata indicate their relative

appearance over time, and that this data is supportive of evolution;

and then from this, take into account the independent evidence for

evolution from many other fields, and then, resting on evolutionary

assumptions, taking further into account mitochondrial DNA dating and

other such lines of evidence, argue for dating with the combined data.

The dates clearly rest on a variety of assumptions, but

paleontologists do not use these assumptions in order to argue for

evolution. Since no one in these relevant science does NOT believe in

evolution, they don't have to spend their time arguing over it.

Instead, they use these dates because doing so best faciliates the

development of their own field.

> I am using a definition for macroevolution that does suit my argument,

> and I have picked a valid definition of macroevolution which evokes

> universal biological observations.

Your definition of macroevolution is incoherent. Let me recapitulate

it with your own words.

: " One kind of organism has not developed into another kind of organism.

This is a prime example of evolutionist non sequitur. "

Chris: " Then it behooves you to explain a logically consistent

definition of 'another kind of organism.' "

: " A kind can be defined as a distinct group of organisms which share the

ability breed and produce fertile or infertile offspring "

Here, your definition of macroevolution appears to be a change from

one kind to another, where " kind " includes all animals capable of

interbreeding, whether or not their offspring are fertile. So

apparently donkeys, horses and mules constitute a " kind, " and tiger

salamanders and axolotl's constitute a " kind, " whereas chimpanzees and

monkeys constitute two separate kinds.

Then, you stipulate that macroevolution is dependent not only on the

phenotypic change, but also on the mechanism by which it occurs:

" In order for

macroevolution to occur, new genetic material must be introduced into

offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely recombination of

genes, but entirely new genetic material. "

The reason your definition is incoherent is because your phenotypic

stipulations have nothing to do with your genetic stipulations, and

they are further irrelevant to the evolutionary concept of change

across large taxa.

In other words, whether or not species can interbreed is related only

to one particular definition of species. It in and of itself is not

even necessary to define a species, and it is completely irrelevant

from the development of new morphological characteristics, modes of

life or life cycles that would form the basis for macroevolution.

Further, whether or not a species can interbreed has absolutely

nothing to do with the way in which the phenotype arose, whether it is

through recombination or other means. Finally, the development of new

characteristics that would form the basis for the development of new

taxa also has nothing to do with the molecular mechanisms by which

those characteristics arose.

Your argument is also self-contradictory in that you admit that

speciation -- the formation, you could say, of separate species that

cannot interbreed or tend not to from a species that originally fully

interbreeds -- occurs. You also acknowledge that recombination of

genetic material can within a species can lead to major changes in

life modality and morphology. Then, you insist that neither of these

can form the basis for macroevolution unless they occur at the same

time -- yet you propose absolutely no reason that we should observe

both in nature and conclude for some reason that they are mutually

exclusive.

You then insist that observations be " real time, " precluding us from

pointing to circumstantial evidence that both have happened in

innumerable different speciations. Thus, we are left only to rely on

that which we can provide direct evidence of one species leading to

the other. This is directly dependent on showing the changes occur

*while the species can interbreed*. Once they are unable to

interbreed, the change is in the past and no longer in " real time. "

Thus, your argument that we have not observed " macroevolution " in real

time is CIRCULAR because you have arbitrarily defined it in such a way

as to make it ONLY observable in the PAST.

[snip]

> The definition [of macroevolution] I am using is most

> consistent with the last one below: " Large-scale evolution occurring

> over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic

> groups. "

Thus you further prove my point. You insist that we have not observed

macroevolution in " real time, " and then you define macroevolution as

occuring " over geologic time. " The contention that we have not

observed it in real time, then, is a meaningless tautology.

>Notice that that definition does not say " new taxonomic

> species or varieties " but " groups. " Various definitions below do are

> not altogether uncommon in evolutionary circles.

I am not interested in what is common or uncommon in " evolutionary

circles. " It would be more valuable to discuss the specific points

that have come up in our own conversation, rather than for one of us

to dismiss either of our arguments or those of other people

participating in this thread based on a vague characterization of

arguments that come from " evolutionary circles, " whatever those are.

(Universities? Laboratories? All research institutions?)

[snip]

>We observe that there are

> taxonomic groups that neither interbreed nor transform one into

> another.

If taxonomic groups interbred, there wouldn't BE any taxonomic groups.

And we do not observe in " real time " the type of transformations that

take place over " geologic time. " Instead, we observe the many

mechanisms that are resonably proposed to contribute to those

transformations, and then indirect evidence strongly proposing that

such changes occurred.

Forensic scientists do the same thing. Imagine how many murderers

would walk free if the juries insisted upon seeing the murder

themselves.

> There are many mechanism through which bacteria swap genes, and in

> fact human cells swap genes during sexual reproduction, but not all

> species are observed to follow the same rules. Unlike bacteria, there

> is a stasis that mammalian cells achieve after sexual reproduction,

> and there are innumerable differences between bacteria and mammals.

This is entirely correct that the mechanisms of genetic exchange

differ between humans and animals. It is not, in fact, true that

there is a stasis in the genome of mammalian cells after sexual

reproduction. We observe a great deal of fluidity in the somatic

genome, and at least some of it appears to be regulated rather than

random. While we *conventionally* assume that the germ line genome

resists these changes and changes only due to random error, it has

also been suggested that there is a feedback mechanism between somatic

mutation and germ line mutation, and evidence for this has been

claimed.

> Incidentally, I am enjoying all this research on bacterial genetics.

> If macroevolution of the definition I am using (Large-scale evolution

> occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new

> taxonomic groups) were true I would expect bacteria to be transforming

> into cellular organisms since their rate of division is so

> astronomically rapid. Since it is asserted that we do not see

> macroevolution occur in the grand scale because of the great number of

> generations required, which has taken millions of years, then bacteria

> should be able to simulate millions of years of genetic change in

> observable time due to their astronomical numbers and rate of

> division. We should be seeing bacteria transform into non-bacterial

> organisms. But with all the mechanisms we do observe in bacteria,

> this proves that bacteria just make more bacteria.

Bacteria are prokaryotes, meaning they have no membranous organelles,

no nuclear envelope, and in general one circular chromosome (though

often with additional bits of DNA on the side), and they multiply so

rapidly largely because of this relative lack of organization and

simplicity of the organization of their DNA.

As I'm sure you know, protists are the " grab bag " kingdom that really

should be considered to be a grouping of over 35 different kingdoms if

we were to classify protists in the same way we classify the other

kingdoms. It is the protists who developed intercellular organelles

that were necessary for the further development of true

multicellularity, tissue grades, and differentiated organ development,

and these protists do NOT have high replication speeds like bacteria.

We do not have well-developed theories for how other organelles

developed, but we have mountains of evidence for the endosymbiotic

theory of mitochondria and chloroplast development, which states that

both mitochondria and chloroplasts were intracellular organisms that

invaded certain protists, and over time, genetic exchange between the

two led to interdependence.

With this theory, we would expect this to be happening in other

protists. And indeed, this appears to be exactly what we observe.

Not only are there protists that have chloroplasts that are clearly

derived from a different lineage than the chloroplasts of plants, but

there are also protists that currently are observed to harbor

photosynthetic bacteria in precisely the way the endosymbiotic theory

stipulates chloroplasts originally developed. Thus, we ARE observing

the development of new organelles in organisms in which they do not

exist.

Now seeing these intracellular photosynthetic organisms does not PROVE

that they will become chloroplasts over " geologic time, " but it is an

observation that is fully consistent with the endosymbiotic

(evolutionary) theory.

And, for what it is worth, there are bacteria that exhibit

characteristics of multicellularity and in fact bacterial colonies in

general exhibit some degree of cellular differentiation. This has

been traditionally overlooked because they do not exhibit this

behavior in suspension cultures in laboratories where they are not

capable of exhibiting their normal behavior. This strongly suggests

that cellular differentiation within a multicellular model does not

nearly require the type of massive simultaneous mutation and " new

gentic material " that you are proposing it does, and is actually to

some degree a fundamental characteristic of the communicatory nature

of cells that associate closely with one another.

> About Price being an evolutionist. Fine with me. But as I have read

> Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I am not struck that evolutionism

> was to him what it is claimed to be by evolutionary biologist today,

> that is, that macroevolution is the underlying principle of all

> biological sciences. Price or anyone else, should have come to the

> same sort of conclusions without having to assert or believe in

> macroevolution or learning much about it.

This seems to contradict your point that belief in evolution is what

determines the belief that we should eat junk food, does it not?

>Now, there are people at

> this point who would say that all science is evolution. This is said

> while assuming that macroevolution is true, that macroevolution

> happened as a result of genetics, variation, mutation, speciation, and

> therefore one must believe in the unobserved principle in order to be

> a true scientist who works with the observational.

More or less -- this is similar to the way a jury in a murder trial

insists that they follow the results of the collection of forensic

evidence rather than the presence or absence of their own direct

observation of the murder. In fact, if they had directly observed the

murder, they would be excluded from the jury in the first place.

> If Price were to base his dietary conclusions by the same kind of

> processes people come to believe in macroevolution today, it would be

> based on something like 0.0001% or less observation.

I would be fascinated to learn how you quantified that.

> The evolution

> model is irrelevant to his OBSERVATIONS based on intensive real time

> not on millions of years of non-observation. CONCLUSIONS based on

> non-observation and macroevolution are suspect. The great power of

> Price's work has to do with the massive amounts of observational data,

> which overshadow erroneous assupmtions of macroevolution. Remove

> macroevolutionary assumptions presumptions and the value of his

> observations are unchanged.

The point is that they are present in his work, and his conclusions

still stand. This directly refutes your notion that evolutionists are

responsible for feeding junk food to the masses.

> Now concerning recombination. The genetic code we are still

> discovering much about. When the genetic code is recombined, the

> code itself requires mechanisms outside itself to recombine. The

> genetic code is considered the source of the duplicable complexity of

> the organism. Are the lengths of DNA growing? If so, are there

> observed limits?

Evolutionary theory predicts not that the lengths of DNA grow

continuously, but that there is an equilibrium reached determined in

large part by the capacity to maintain the stability of the genome.

Duplication of genetic material *is* directly observed under

laboratory conditions.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

EVOLUTION, n. [L. evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.

1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.

2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve,and making it describe an

evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is

such a gradual approach of the circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do

all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes

successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they

change into a straight line.

3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of

involution.

4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling,

countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed,

in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or to occupy a different post.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-) KEY

NOUN:

1.. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually

more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2..

1.. The process of developing.

2.. Gradual development.

3.. Biology

1.. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive

generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation

among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

2.. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

4.. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

5.. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

THE'ORY, n. [L. theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.]

1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation

or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable

sense, as implying something visionary.

2. An exposition of the general principles of any science; as the theory of

music.

3. The science distinguished from the art; as the theory and practice of

medicine.

4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as

Lavoisier's theory of combustion; 's theory of moral sentiments.

Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences

drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a

hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no

other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of

those phenomena.

Darwin, a 19th century British self-taught geologist and writer. He

attended a course in theology at Christ's College, Cambridge. Darwin wrote in

two places in his book " Life and Letters " about his personal faith:

" The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one

must be content to remain an Agnostic. "

" I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of

mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect. "

Gene, in answer to your question as to whether or not I think that discounts

evolution, absolutely not. However, I too search for the truth in everything.

One thing that I find interesting is that Darwin was a " self taught " geologist.

And I am probably far less an expert in evolution as you are, but isn't geology

the study of rocks and of the earth's crust and such? Darwin was a confessed

Agnostic, he wasn't sure either way whether God existed or not. One of the

arguments for Darwin was that he " had to be sure of his theory, otherwise why

would he have suffered the persecution of the religious world? " And in using

that question, I have to say why would men for over the last 2000 years give

their lives for something they believed in, if they too weren't sure? Just

simple questions that have no simple answers. What is truly amazing to me is

the " tone " that you and implode have against people who are Christians. But, I

guess that is understandable too. I'm glad that you find humor in my email

address. But I have been studying the Bible for a good number of years now.

Probably one of the most interesting books that I have ever read, and one of the

most powerful. Hey, I'm not your enemy at all. But even though I am a

Christian, I too have opinions that should be allowed to be expressed as well as

yours....besides, is " hilariouser " really a word? lol

.........

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

>

>

> --->

> This just gets hilariouser and hilariouser...Note the email address here -

> Obible770¹.

>

> Well, I am very far from an expert on evolution, but no ­ I don¹t think that

> if a evolved from b, it means that b is no longer around necessarily. Why ­

> did you think that you had disproven the theory of evolution with that

remark?

[Guest guest]

> Just

> simple questions that have no simple answers. What is truly amazing to me is

> the " tone " that you and implode have against people who are Christians.

Actually, I am 'implode'. Same person, one email from work and one from home.

but, you see, I have nothing against true Christians. It's the mindless

fundamentalist Christians who want society to conform to their sensibilities

that I object to.

>But, I

> guess that is understandable too. I'm glad that you find humor in my email

> address. But I have been studying the Bible for a good number of years now.

> Probably one of the most interesting books that I have ever read, and one of

the

> most powerful. Hey, I'm not your enemy at all. But even though I am a

> Christian, I too have opinions that should be allowed to be expressed as well

as

> yours....besides, is " hilariouser " really a word? lol

LOL. Yeah it was a joke. I'm glad you got it. And yes - it was funny to see your

email address, further bolstering the contention that most of this attempt to

bring this country back to the middle ages comes from fundamentalist, right

wing, Christians.

>

> .........

>

>

>

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --->

> > This just gets hilariouser and hilariouser...Note the email address here -

> > Obible770¹.

> >

> > Well, I am very far from an expert on evolution, but no ­ I don¹t think

that

> > if a evolved from b, it means that b is no longer around necessarily. Why

­

> > did you think that you had disproven the theory of evolution with that

> remark?

>

>

[Guest guest]

My definition of macroevolution is not arbitrary. Instead of quoting

the precise definition, I use the word macroevolution because it is

the best word that fits a evolutionary principle that is not observed

in nature, nor hinted at in nature. Nature shows various distinct

limits to variation, not as should be expected if the broadest

definition were true. I am defining my use of macroevoluiton and am

using the word so that I do not have to type the definition over and

over again. I continue to defend principles fundamentally observed

(variation occurs, speciation occurs, limits to variation) and attack

those not observed (transformation from one kind of organism to

another is not observed). I have used the terms microevolution and

macroevolution and defined them for sake of simplification. Your

attack on my choices of those words and my use of them is not valid.

As I define these terms, my argument is valid.

Evolutionists continually shift these terms continually so that there

become a blur as to differences between the meanings of the terms

evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, variation, speciation, and

mutation. When an evolutionist argues for the broadest definition

of evolution for which the term macroevolution better applies, he

points to the narrowest examples observable in modern biology (for

which the term microevolition often applies such as speciation,

recombination, gene swapping) as proof for the broadest scope (such as

presumed transformations of kinds of organisms into other kinds for

which the term macroevolution often applies). Regardless of whether

one agrees with the definitions I am using, they fit definitions

already in use for these words.

Mutation and natural selection are not sufficient to explain the vast

complexity of life observe. You have stated that evolutionists to not

claim that humans were derived from monkeys because monkeys are still

with us, but since the evolutionary model has our supposed ancestors

contemporaneous with humans for hundreds of millennial, there is

serious inconsistency.

As for your assurance that the fossil record shows a graduation of

evolutionary development, you are greatly mistaken.

There is a general presumption that there is a characteristic geologic

column that shows the various evolutionary ages in even succession.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Sedimentary layers of

fossils show things out of place, with massive gaps and without

graduation. Before there was very much known about the fossil

record, dates, names and epochs were already outlined, then as fossils

and sedimentary rocks were afterward identified, the dates, and

presumed places that the rocks and fossils were thought to be placed

then were fit into the presumptions. The whole fabricated geologic

column would be about 100 miles thick if all the layers were put on

top of each other end to end. This situation does not exist anywhere

on earth. There are a few places where evolutionists claim the whole

column exists as sedimentary rock, but the fossils that would confirm

the eras are sorely missing.

Many of us have seen a representation of the geologic column in

biology text books, but that is a hopeful representation (but not even

closely accurate representation) of how it should look if the whole

story of evolution were true. In many places even entire huge layers

of sedimentary rock are reversed in order. There are many example of

this, such as the Overthrust in Montana which is 350 miles long

with no physical sign of actual geologic overthrust-- Precambrian over

Cretaceous. The massive out of place slab is directly on top of the

other with no sign of sliding friction..

What is actually found in fossil record in the field provides

massively more difficulty for evolution than the gaps presented in a

text book representation of how it is supposed to look. There are

massive omissions, reversals, out of sequence examples, etc. The

foundation of the evolutionary model is the geologic column, but it an

elaborate and massive construct. Neither the fossil record nor real

time obsevation and experimentation supports the elaborate construct.

It is easy to see how evolutionary scientists have faith that the

variations obseved in nature are manifistations of evolution displayed

in classic text books, but the geologic column is a construct rife

with massive omissions, massive reversals, circular and unvarifiable

dating, the " universal principle of evolution " evaporates like a puff

of mist.

On 9/6/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> > Macroevolution is commonly given different definitions. Defining a

> > tern is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when the flow

> > of argument makes a premise dependent on the conclusion

>

> The reason your argument is circular is because you have defined

> macroevolutionary mechanisms in a very narrow and arbitrary way of

> your own choosing, and your contention that macroevolutionary

> mechanisms have not been observed rests directly on your arbitrary

> definition of those mechanisms. Since paedomorphosis is considered to

> be a fundamental mechanism of macroevolution by those who actually

> advocate the theory, and is directly observed, this refutes your

> contention that no mechanisms of macroevolution are observed. Since

> you have arbitrarily put forth your *own* definition of the mechanisms

> of macroevolution, however, you are able to contend that

> paedomorphosis is no such mechanism, even when it is directly observed

> to result in speciation that involves dramatic changes in mode of life

> and morphology, because it does not conform to your own arbitrary

> definition.

>

> Although this is a simplification, the essence of your argument can be

> summed as follows:

>

> Macroevolution occurs through mechsanisms that are not observed;

> therefore, the mechanisms of macroevolution have not been observed.

>

> > as with the

> > evolutionary model. For example, ages of sedimentary strata are dated

> > by index fossils, and index fossils are dated by the strata. This is

> > done independently of radiometric dating as already mentioned. Thus,

> > the paleontologist refers to the geologist for dating the fossils, and

> > the geologist refers to the paleontologist for dating the sedimentary

> > rock strata.

>

> Then the dating of these fossils rests on evolutionary assumptions.

> It would be circular to argue that the dates are evidence for

> evolution; anyone who would do this is an idiot. Unfortunately, you

> manage to portray evolutionists as idiots by implying that they make

> an argument such as this. While there are idiots in every corner of

> the world, I have never actually seen an evolutionist argue that dates

> for fossils determined directly with evolutionary assumptions is

> evidence for evolution.

>

> I am sure, however, that there are people who argue that the relative

> placement of certain fossils in rock strata indicate their relative

> appearance over time, and that this data is supportive of evolution;

> and then from this, take into account the independent evidence for

> evolution from many other fields, and then, resting on evolutionary

> assumptions, taking further into account mitochondrial DNA dating and

> other such lines of evidence, argue for dating with the combined data.

> The dates clearly rest on a variety of assumptions, but

> paleontologists do not use these assumptions in order to argue for

> evolution. Since no one in these relevant science does NOT believe in

> evolution, they don't have to spend their time arguing over it.

> Instead, they use these dates because doing so best faciliates the

> development of their own field.

>

> > I am using a definition for macroevolution that does suit my argument,

> > and I have picked a valid definition of macroevolution which evokes

> > universal biological observations.

>

> Your definition of macroevolution is incoherent. Let me recapitulate

> it with your own words.

>

> : " One kind of organism has not developed into another kind of organism.

> This is a prime example of evolutionist non sequitur. "

>

> Chris: " Then it behooves you to explain a logically consistent

> definition of 'another kind of organism.' "

>

> : " A kind can be defined as a distinct group of organisms which share the

> ability breed and produce fertile or infertile offspring "

>

> Here, your definition of macroevolution appears to be a change from

> one kind to another, where " kind " includes all animals capable of

> interbreeding, whether or not their offspring are fertile. So

> apparently donkeys, horses and mules constitute a " kind, " and tiger

> salamanders and axolotl's constitute a " kind, " whereas chimpanzees and

> monkeys constitute two separate kinds.

>

> Then, you stipulate that macroevolution is dependent not only on the

> phenotypic change, but also on the mechanism by which it occurs:

>

> " In order for

> macroevolution to occur, new genetic material must be introduced into

> offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely recombination of

> genes, but entirely new genetic material. "

>

> The reason your definition is incoherent is because your phenotypic

> stipulations have nothing to do with your genetic stipulations, and

> they are further irrelevant to the evolutionary concept of change

> across large taxa.

>

> In other words, whether or not species can interbreed is related only

> to one particular definition of species. It in and of itself is not

> even necessary to define a species, and it is completely irrelevant

> from the development of new morphological characteristics, modes of

> life or life cycles that would form the basis for macroevolution.

> Further, whether or not a species can interbreed has absolutely

> nothing to do with the way in which the phenotype arose, whether it is

> through recombination or other means. Finally, the development of new

> characteristics that would form the basis for the development of new

> taxa also has nothing to do with the molecular mechanisms by which

> those characteristics arose.

>

> Your argument is also self-contradictory in that you admit that

> speciation -- the formation, you could say, of separate species that

> cannot interbreed or tend not to from a species that originally fully

> interbreeds -- occurs. You also acknowledge that recombination of

> genetic material can within a species can lead to major changes in

> life modality and morphology. Then, you insist that neither of these

> can form the basis for macroevolution unless they occur at the same

> time -- yet you propose absolutely no reason that we should observe

> both in nature and conclude for some reason that they are mutually

> exclusive.

>

> You then insist that observations be " real time, " precluding us from

> pointing to circumstantial evidence that both have happened in

> innumerable different speciations. Thus, we are left only to rely on

> that which we can provide direct evidence of one species leading to

> the other. This is directly dependent on showing the changes occur

> *while the species can interbreed*. Once they are unable to

> interbreed, the change is in the past and no longer in " real time. "

>

> Thus, your argument that we have not observed " macroevolution " in real

> time is CIRCULAR because you have arbitrarily defined it in such a way

> as to make it ONLY observable in the PAST.

>

> [snip]

>

> > The definition [of macroevolution] I am using is most

> > consistent with the last one below: " Large-scale evolution occurring

> > over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic

> > groups. "

>

> Thus you further prove my point. You insist that we have not observed

> macroevolution in " real time, " and then you define macroevolution as

> occuring " over geologic time. " The contention that we have not

> observed it in real time, then, is a meaningless tautology.

>

> >Notice that that definition does not say " new taxonomic

> > species or varieties " but " groups. " Various definitions below do are

> > not altogether uncommon in evolutionary circles.

>

> I am not interested in what is common or uncommon in " evolutionary

> circles. " It would be more valuable to discuss the specific points

> that have come up in our own conversation, rather than for one of us

> to dismiss either of our arguments or those of other people

> participating in this thread based on a vague characterization of

> arguments that come from " evolutionary circles, " whatever those are.

> (Universities? Laboratories? All research institutions?)

>

> [snip]

>

>

> >We observe that there are

> > taxonomic groups that neither interbreed nor transform one into

> > another.

>

> If taxonomic groups interbred, there wouldn't BE any taxonomic groups.

> And we do not observe in " real time " the type of transformations that

> take place over " geologic time. " Instead, we observe the many

> mechanisms that are resonably proposed to contribute to those

> transformations, and then indirect evidence strongly proposing that

> such changes occurred.

>

> Forensic scientists do the same thing. Imagine how many murderers

> would walk free if the juries insisted upon seeing the murder

> themselves.

>

> > There are many mechanism through which bacteria swap genes, and in

> > fact human cells swap genes during sexual reproduction, but not all

> > species are observed to follow the same rules. Unlike bacteria, there

> > is a stasis that mammalian cells achieve after sexual reproduction,

> > and there are innumerable differences between bacteria and mammals.

>

> This is entirely correct that the mechanisms of genetic exchange

> differ between humans and animals. It is not, in fact, true that

> there is a stasis in the genome of mammalian cells after sexual

> reproduction. We observe a great deal of fluidity in the somatic

> genome, and at least some of it appears to be regulated rather than

> random. While we *conventionally* assume that the germ line genome

> resists these changes and changes only due to random error, it has

> also been suggested that there is a feedback mechanism between somatic

> mutation and germ line mutation, and evidence for this has been

> claimed.

>

> > Incidentally, I am enjoying all this research on bacterial genetics.

> > If macroevolution of the definition I am using (Large-scale evolution

> > occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new

> > taxonomic groups) were true I would expect bacteria to be transforming

> > into cellular organisms since their rate of division is so

> > astronomically rapid. Since it is asserted that we do not see

> > macroevolution occur in the grand scale because of the great number of

> > generations required, which has taken millions of years, then bacteria

> > should be able to simulate millions of years of genetic change in

> > observable time due to their astronomical numbers and rate of

> > division. We should be seeing bacteria transform into non-bacterial

> > organisms. But with all the mechanisms we do observe in bacteria,

> > this proves that bacteria just make more bacteria.

>

> Bacteria are prokaryotes, meaning they have no membranous organelles,

> no nuclear envelope, and in general one circular chromosome (though

> often with additional bits of DNA on the side), and they multiply so

> rapidly largely because of this relative lack of organization and

> simplicity of the organization of their DNA.

>

> As I'm sure you know, protists are the " grab bag " kingdom that really

> should be considered to be a grouping of over 35 different kingdoms if

> we were to classify protists in the same way we classify the other

> kingdoms. It is the protists who developed intercellular organelles

> that were necessary for the further development of true

> multicellularity, tissue grades, and differentiated organ development,

> and these protists do NOT have high replication speeds like bacteria.

>

> We do not have well-developed theories for how other organelles

> developed, but we have mountains of evidence for the endosymbiotic

> theory of mitochondria and chloroplast development, which states that

> both mitochondria and chloroplasts were intracellular organisms that

> invaded certain protists, and over time, genetic exchange between the

> two led to interdependence.

>

> With this theory, we would expect this to be happening in other

> protists. And indeed, this appears to be exactly what we observe.

> Not only are there protists that have chloroplasts that are clearly

> derived from a different lineage than the chloroplasts of plants, but

> there are also protists that currently are observed to harbor

> photosynthetic bacteria in precisely the way the endosymbiotic theory

> stipulates chloroplasts originally developed. Thus, we ARE observing

> the development of new organelles in organisms in which they do not

> exist.

>

> Now seeing these intracellular photosynthetic organisms does not PROVE

> that they will become chloroplasts over " geologic time, " but it is an

> observation that is fully consistent with the endosymbiotic

> (evolutionary) theory.

>

> And, for what it is worth, there are bacteria that exhibit

> characteristics of multicellularity and in fact bacterial colonies in

> general exhibit some degree of cellular differentiation. This has

> been traditionally overlooked because they do not exhibit this

> behavior in suspension cultures in laboratories where they are not

> capable of exhibiting their normal behavior. This strongly suggests

> that cellular differentiation within a multicellular model does not

> nearly require the type of massive simultaneous mutation and " new

> gentic material " that you are proposing it does, and is actually to

> some degree a fundamental characteristic of the communicatory nature

> of cells that associate closely with one another.

>

> > About Price being an evolutionist. Fine with me. But as I have read

> > Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I am not struck that evolutionism

> > was to him what it is claimed to be by evolutionary biologist today,

> > that is, that macroevolution is the underlying principle of all

> > biological sciences. Price or anyone else, should have come to the

> > same sort of conclusions without having to assert or believe in

> > macroevolution or learning much about it.

>

> This seems to contradict your point that belief in evolution is what

> determines the belief that we should eat junk food, does it not?

>

> >Now, there are people at

> > this point who would say that all science is evolution. This is said

> > while assuming that macroevolution is true, that macroevolution

> > happened as a result of genetics, variation, mutation, speciation, and

> > therefore one must believe in the unobserved principle in order to be

> > a true scientist who works with the observational.

>

> More or less -- this is similar to the way a jury in a murder trial

> insists that they follow the results of the collection of forensic

> evidence rather than the presence or absence of their own direct

> observation of the murder. In fact, if they had directly observed the

> murder, they would be excluded from the jury in the first place.

>

> > If Price were to base his dietary conclusions by the same kind of

> > processes people come to believe in macroevolution today, it would be

> > based on something like 0.0001% or less observation.

>

> I would be fascinated to learn how you quantified that.

>

> > The evolution

> > model is irrelevant to his OBSERVATIONS based on intensive real time

> > not on millions of years of non-observation. CONCLUSIONS based on

> > non-observation and macroevolution are suspect. The great power of

> > Price's work has to do with the massive amounts of observational data,

> > which overshadow erroneous assupmtions of macroevolution. Remove

> > macroevolutionary assumptions presumptions and the value of his

> > observations are unchanged.

>

> The point is that they are present in his work, and his conclusions

> still stand. This directly refutes your notion that evolutionists are

> responsible for feeding junk food to the masses.

>

> > Now concerning recombination. The genetic code we are still

> > discovering much about. When the genetic code is recombined, the

> > code itself requires mechanisms outside itself to recombine. The

> > genetic code is considered the source of the duplicable complexity of

> > the organism. Are the lengths of DNA growing? If so, are there

> > observed limits?

>

> Evolutionary theory predicts not that the lengths of DNA grow

> continuously, but that there is an equilibrium reached determined in

> large part by the capacity to maintain the stability of the genome.

>

> Duplication of genetic material *is* directly observed under

> laboratory conditions.

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

> <B>MODERATOR:</B> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>