EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

,

> Evolutionists agree that the eye of octopuses and the mammalian eye do

> not have common origin, yet function and form of these organs are

> strikingly similar, including features such a as muscle position,

> retina, iris, rods and cones.

I actually don't know much detail about the similarities and

differences between the octupal and mammalian eyes (I may have

invented " octupal " ), but I readily acknowledge that neither similarity

in form nor than in function ipso facto indicate common origin.

> There are many other analogous traits

> held by animals presumed to have common ancestry or presumed not to

> have common ancestry.

Right. This is the difference between " homologous " and " analogous "

traits, genes, or proteins. In some cases, we infer common origin

when things have *different* forms and functions but nevertheless

exhibit some type of homology. For example, the number and pattern of

bones in a whale's fin, a human arm, a bird's wings, and other such

extensions are homologous and the orientations in relation to the

thorax are homologous. There is no reason to expect such homology in

structures with disparate functions unless they had a common origin.

It does not prove common origin, but it is one of the thousands of

" coincidences " that can be explained in a coherent and systematic

fashion by evolutionary theory.

And, as you note, we also see similar structures and functions emerge

that show no sign of underlying homology and no apparent connection to

other species. In these cases, we see the influence of selective

pressure; in the former cases, we see the influence of common descent.

The fact that both processes operate results in our observation that

both types of result occur, and we use scientific evidence to

distinguish between the two.

[snip]

> As we see with the analogous traits of octopuses and mammals. It does

> not follow that analogy of traits proves common origin.

Everyone agrees with this. That's why we seek much more evidence to

infer common origin than simple analogy.

> In the same way, the model that bacteria evolved into mitochondria

> follows the same fallacy of the type that would assume that octopuses

> evolved into mammals or that two toed forelegs evolved into two toed

> hind legs. Bacteria have analogies to mitochondria and chloroplasts,

> but the model lacks observational validity. Firstly, this process is

> not observed in real time. Secondly, since we cannot go back and test

> the processes that supposedly would have produced mitochondria from

> bacteria, then we lacking observational data based the past. Thirdly,

> it does not follow that analogy proves common origin without observing

> common origin. Fourthly, we are lacking experimental data to produce

> mitochondria from bacteria in real time laboratory conditions. Anyone

> of these points alone can render the logic behind the syntrophic

> hypothesis invalid. The validity of any one or more of my above

> points multiplies the invalidity.

The surfaces of mountains and valleys that scientists with a moderate

dose of observation and a boatload of conjecture have presumed to

attributable to either erosion or collision of tectonic plates

likewise have never been observed to form from such processes. Such

surfaces bear analogies to those that we observe in real time to be

microeroded, but we have never gone back in time and tested the

unobserved (and repressive) presumption of macroerosion, nor have we

ever, despite the enormous abundance of water available at our

disposal, been able to reproduce a mountain in a laboratory.

Nevertheless, this does not stop scientists from " equivocating " and

inferring from microerosion that the unobserved process of

macroerosion indeed occurs. No one is capaigning on school boards to

eliminate erosion from the textbooks or insist that they emphasize

that it's only a theory. No one is clamoring to eliminate the

thoroughly unobserved phenomenon taught as the Civil War, with history

entirely *inferred* from historical documents that could be

interpreted in any number of ways, from these school books either.

This is because when discussing ANYTHING besides evolution EVERYONE

readily admits the validity of inferring from circumstantial evidence

and testing predictions made from a hypothesis rather than insisting

upon the direct observation of the very thing hypothesized in order to

validate it.

Let's take a look at some of that evidence. Some of it is highly

circumstantial and only consistent with the hypothesis of

endosymbiosis (that mitochondria and chloroplasts were originally

bacteria inside another bacterium or protist's cell), while some of it

is more exclusive of other explanations.

-- Mitochondria and chloroplasts are the same size as an average bacterium.

-- Both organelles replicate by fission, like bacterial cells.

-- Duplication of mitochondria and chloroplasts takes place completely

independently of the duplication and division of the host cell.

-- Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome, organized as a

circular chromosome, just like a bacterial chromosom, and completely

different from eukaryotic choromosomes (we are eukaryotes).

-- Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own ribosomes, which are

structurally homologous with *bacterial* ribosomes and NOT eurkaryotic

ribosomes. The antibiotics that work by poisoning bacterial ribosomes

also poison mitochondrial ribosomes and NOT the ribosomes of the host

cell.

-- The photosynthetic organelle of glaucophyte algae has an outer

layer of peptidoglycan, just like the cell wall of the of the

photosynthetic cyanobacteria that are believed to be the precursors of

chloroplasts.

-- Some cyanobacteria such as Prochloron look just like chloroplasts,

with the particular types of chlorophyll and with the same

intermembranous organization as a chloroplast.

-- Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have double membranes. That is,

they have two separate phospholipid bilayers. This is what we would

expect from the entry of a bilayer-enclosed cyanobacterium into a

bilayer-enclosed host cell -- entry would cause the pinching off of

the membrane around the cyanobacterium. Moreover, the *inside* of the

*outer* layer of the mitochondria or chloroplast would be expected to

be topologically consisted with the *outside* layer of the host cell

membrane. This is what we find.

-- The very recent ability to decode an entire genome has allowes us

to reliably test the closeness of relationships between organisms

based on the actual sequence of their DNA. This has proven to be a

reliable measrue of relationships. Organisms that are closely related

consistently have closer matches in DNA sequence than organisms that

are less closely related in proportion to this closeness. As we would

expect from the endosymbiosis theory, DNA sequence analysis has shown

that mitochondria are remarkably closely related specifically to

alpha-proteobacteria, which are the group of bacteria from which the

endosymbiosis theory predicts mitochondria were derived and that

chloroplasts are remarkably closely related specifically to

cyanobacteria, from which the endosymbiosis theory predicts

chloroplasts are derived.

-- Many of the mitochondrial and chloroplast genes are coded for in

the *nucleus of the host cell.* It is believed that lateral gene

transfer resulted in the gradual transfer of genes from the

endosymbiote to the host cell. Note that we observe lateral (or

horizontal) transfer in nature and the laboratory. Anyway, in a

remarkable confirmation of this, the NUCLEAR genes that code for

proteins that are sent to the mitochondria resemble *bacterial* genes,

unlike all the other genes in the cell! Granted, they have been

modified to some degree to accomodate the nuclear and cytosolic

translation and transcription machinery.

-- In some case, there are redundant genes that fulfill the same

function, but one is used in the cytosol (within the cell but outside

the organelles) and the other in the mitochondria, and for some reason

the mitochodrial version has a DNA sequence related to the same enzyme

in bacteria rather than that in the host cell. For example, the

superoxide dismutaste enzyme of chicken mitochondria resembles the

superoxide dismutase enzyme of bacteria much more than it resembles

the superoxide dismutase of the *chicken itself*.

-- There is a gradual progression of the complexity of the

mitochondrial genome, where the complexity *decreases* as the

complexity of the host organism *increases*. Thus, in primitive

single-celled eukaryotes the mitochondria codes most of its own genes,

whereas in mammals most of the mitochondria's genes are coded for by

the nucleus. This supports a gradual transfer of mitochondrial genes

to the nucleus with progressive evolution.

Now, let's look back at one specific part of your critique:

> Firstly, this process is not observed in real time.

Au contraire, my friend.

Dozens of contemporary protists are anaerobic and ingest aerobic

alpha-proteobacteria that resemble what we would expect the

mitochondrial precursor to resemble. Ther eare also many

endosymbiotic relationshiops between protists and bacteria. Among the

alpha-proteobacteria alone, there are three major groups that are ONLY

found INSIDE PROTISTS.

There are also contemporary examples of protists that depend directly

on photosynthetic cyanobacteria that reside within them.

And among those protists that have actual chloroplasts, which we

define essentially by the dependence on the nuclear genes for the

survival of the chloroplast, we find that the chloroplast or

mitochondria has most of its own genome, and then the mroe complex the

organism, we find a progressive grade where more and more genes are

found in the nucleus rather than the mitochondria or chloroplast.

Thus we observe practically every single step in this process all

happening contemporarily.

> That experimental data and observational data are lacking is

> illustrated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote :

>

> " The origin of the endomembrane system and mitochondria are also

> disputed. The phagotrophic hypothesis states the membranes originated

> with the development of endocytosis and later specialized;

> mitochondria were acquired by ingestion, like plastids. The syntrophic

> hypothesis states that the proto-eukaryote relied on the

> proto-mitochondrion for food, and so ultimately grew to surround it;

> the membranes originate later, in part thanks to mitochondrial genes

> (the hydrogen hypothesis is one particular version). "

I don't know the details about this controversy, but the fact that

there is not complete agreement on the details does not somehow

invalidate the hypothesis. The fact that historians argue over

whether Lincoln was an advocate of slavery or an abolitionist does not

somehow suggest in any way that Lincoln did not exist or that the

Civil War did not happen.

[snip]

> Hybridization also

> demonstrates a general lessening of viability for survival as with

> tendencies for sterility.

There are three different tendencies for the results of hybridization:

sterility; reinforcement of the separation of species through

decreased fitness of the hybrid; an equally fit or more fit hybrid

leading to convergence of the two species.

I have already offered as many examples of the latter as you have

offered of either of the first two, so it is about time for you to

cease misrepresenting hybridization as if it always results in

decreased fitness or sterility.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Wow

I would have expected a better retort from you than that. My stance is that God

created man and woman, the Bible clearly states that we are balls of dirt, that

God took the clay, formed man and breathed life into him. I didn't come from a

monkey. Natural erosion is an entirely different matter. Honestly, when I think

of evolution, I think of " evolving " from a primitive way of life to the modern

live we all live now. Has the chemistry of man changed since he was created? I

don't think so. Has our ways of thinking changed? Definitely. Is it because

something in the brain chemistry has changed? I don't think so. It is because

of the knowledge that we have attained. I " ve made the statement before, the

Bible and science do agree. There are perhaps millions maybe billions of years

between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. If you search the Bible, you will find there was a

world before this one. Was there man here then? I don't know. But Lucifer was

in charge of something here on earth. That could have been the time of the

dinosaurs. The grand canyons and such, according to scientists there was a

cataclysmic flood that happened....the Bible states that. People say and have

said here that we ( Christians) a closed minded to science, but I would have to

say that people who don't believe in the Bible, or don't believe in God are as

closed-minded or even more so than we are. Do I have all the answers?

Absolutely not, but then again my friend, neither do you.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

Hi ,

> its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are

> as " closed minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution.

> Yes, it is sadly true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that

>everything

> was created by God.

I'm curious -- does this mean you don't believe in erosion because God

created mountains?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

,

> I would have expected a better retort from you than that.

I was not making a retort. I was offering an analogy wherein a

physical process is credited with forming something that God is also

credited with creating, and alluding to the interpretation that God

creates things through the natural processes that he has also created.

> My stance is that God created man and woman, the Bible clearly

> states that we are balls of dirt, that God took the clay, formed man and

> breathed life into him. I didn't come from a monkey. Natural erosion is

> an entirely different matter.

In what hands did God " take " this clay? With what speech did God

" say " " Let us make man in our own image? " Does God have a larynx and

vocal cords, an elbow, arm, hand and five fingers with an opposable

thumb? Or does God " speak " and " take " and " form " things using the

natural processes he has created and the natural laws that are the

very physical manifestation of his will?

The Bible " clearly states " that the mountains smoke when the Lord

" touches " them. Does this negate the physical processes that we

observe to contribute to the eruption of volcanoes? Or,

alternatively, are these processes intimately interconnected to the

creative and active power of God?

Perhaps what the Bible is saying is not that we should expect to see a

giant hand descend from the heavens prior to each volcanic eruption,

but rather that nothing, even those things that we observe to be the

direct result of physical laws and so-called " natural " processes,

happens without the knowledge and will of God.

>People say and have said here that we ( Christians) a closed minded to

>science,

Someone may have said that, but I haven't. I did say you were

unfamiliar with evolutionary theory, and that is correct. It's also

fine if you aren't interesting in learning about it. I don't know

anything about string theory, and I don't think I can be faulted for

it. (Of course, I also don't have an opinion on it either, since I

don't know much about it.) And by " we " you actually mean much more

than " Christians, " because many Christians are scientists and have a

much different interpretation of Genesis than you do.

>but I would have to say that people who don't believe in the

>Bible, or don't believe in God are as closed-minded or even more so than

>we are.

Yet somehow there are many, many people who believe in the Bible and

also believe in evolution, and there are yet more who believe in God

and believe in evolution. So apparently there are people who are

closed-minded to neither.

> Do I have all the answers? Absolutely not, but then again my

>friend, neither do you.

You are very right.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

>

> So, my bet is that you¹re a Republican?

>

>

> ³Wow

> I would have expected a better retort from you than that. My stance is that

> God created man and woman, the Bible clearly states that we are balls of dirt,

> that God took the clay, formed man and breathed life into him. I didn't come

> from a monkey. Natural erosion is an entirely different matter. Honestly,

> when I think of evolution, I think of " evolving " from a primitive way of life

> to the modern live we all live now. Has the chemistry of man changed since he

> was created? I don't think so. Has our ways of thinking changed? Definitely.

> Is it because something in the brain chemistry has changed? I don't think so.

> It is because of the knowledge that we have attained. I " ve made the statement

> before, the Bible and science do agree. There are perhaps millions maybe

> billions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. If you search the Bible, you

> will find there was a world before this one. Was there man here then? I don't

> know. But Lucifer was in charge of something here on earth. That could have

> been the time of the dinosaurs. The grand canyons and such, according to

> scientists there was a cataclysmic flood that happened....the Bible states

> that. People say and have said here that we ( Christians) a closed minded to

> science, but I would have to say that people who don't believe in the Bible,

> or don't believe in God are as closed-minded or even more so than we are. Do

> I have all the answers? Absolutely not, but then again my friend, neither do

> you.

> ²

>

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

> Hi ,

>

>> > its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are

>> > as " closed minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution.

>> > Yes, it is sadly true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that

>> >everything

>> > was created by God.

>

> I'm curious -- does this mean you don't believe in erosion because God

> created mountains?

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

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

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

>

[Guest guest]

Well,

I'm sorry if that offends you, however, it is fact. " For it is written, (as I

live) saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess

to God so then everyone of us shall give an account of himself to God. " Romans

14:11-12

I didn't write it, God did. And I don't think that me stating something as fact

will as offensive as the place where " the worm dieth not " and in your own words,

" the son doesn't shine " there either.

Respectfully

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

>

>

> ³

> you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of Jesus

Christ.

> The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord leave

on

> a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same Jesus you

> see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as He was.

> So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the Lord

came

> to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has hands.........look

in

> the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of a

man's

> hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of

> the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote " ....and so

> on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

> Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man

evolved

> from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to

summarize

> it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

> ²

>

> I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can take your

> Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial sun don¹t

> shine. And I mean that respectfully.

[Guest guest]

>

> ³respectfully². That¹s hilarious. Of course, if your belief system is simply

> fact, then your Christian AGENDA becomes quite obvious, right? Children should

> obviously be taught the facts, correct?

>

> The devil isn¹t an actual being, and evil doesn¹t exist per se as in your

> fairy tale. People like you are it.

>

>

> ³Well,

> I'm sorry if that offends you, however, it is fact. " For it is written, (as I

> live) saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall

> confess to God so then everyone of us shall give an account of himself to

> God. " Romans 14:11-12

>

> I didn't write it, God did. And I don't think that me stating something as

> fact will as offensive as the place where " the worm dieth not " and in your own

> words, " the son doesn't shine " there either.

> Respectfully

> ²

>

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > ³

>> > you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of Jesus

>> Christ.

>> > The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord leave

on

>> > a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same Jesus

>> you

>> > see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as He >>

was.

>> > So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the Lord

>> came

>> > to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has hands.........look

in

>> > the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of a

>> man's

>> > hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall

of

>> > the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote " ....and

so

>> > on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

>> > Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man

>> evolved

>> > from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to

>> summarize

>> > it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

>> > ²

>> >

>> > I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can take your

>> > Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial sun don¹t

>> > shine. And I mean that respectfully.

>

[Guest guest]

There are at least two classes of evidences against the anatomical

evolutionary tree: from chemical homology and from embryonic

development.

Embryological Progressions

The a common evolutionary model holds that gradual transitions from

one species to another over time caused the development of lower

organisms to higher organisms producing the groups of extremely

diverse living things we observe today. If this were true we would

also expect development from egg through embryo to follow these

gradual developments. This would indicate that the genetic material

responsible for the forelimbs of animals, for example, would be

represented from their corresponding genes in corresponding origins of

the embryos.

What has actually been observed in developing embryos and from there

genes is that there is not this gradual embryonic development as as

anything that would be expected.

" It does not matter where in the egg or the embryo the living

substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from.

Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be

pressed back to similarity of position if the cells of the embryo or

the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately

differentiated " (Homology: An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University

Press, by Sir Gavin De Beer).

There is a formulation of a phase of embryo development called

gastrulation, a process which involves a complex sequence of relative

cell movements. No one doubts that grastrulation is homologous in all

vertebrates, but the way the cells arise is strikingly different in

the different classes.

In sharks, the alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the

embryonic gut cavity.

In the lamprey, the alimentary canal is formed from the floor of the

embryonic gut cavity.

In frogs, from the roof and floor.

In birds and reptiles, from the lower layer of the embryonic disk.

In the newt, forearms develop from trunk segments 2, 3, 4, and 5. In

lizards, from segments 6,7,8,and 9. From Man in segments 13, 14, 15

17 and 18.

As we study how the various vertebrate embryos develop, we find more

and more differences as to what parts arise into the homologous parts

we see in their mature stages.

In fish and amphibia, the kidney is derived directly from an

embryonic organ called the mesonephros, but in reptiles and mammals,

the mesonephros degenerates toward and plays no role in kidney

development. The ureter is formed completely differently in different

classes.

Even the many closely similar species develop body parts from

different embryological tissue, as with the frogs Rana fusa and Rana

esculents.

De Beer explains how these two frogs develop their eyes in very

different way, and in reference to that he says,

" This is no isolated example. In true vertebrates the spinal cord and

brain develop as a result of induction by the underlying organizer;

but the " tadpole larva " of the tunicates, which has a " spinal cord "

like the vertebrates, it differentiates without any underlying

organizer at all. All this shows that homologous structures can owe

their origin and stimulus to differentiate to different

organizer-induction processes without forfeiting thier homology. "

The same radical observations are seen in insects so that the adult

organ systems that are formed during metamorphosis are strikingly

different in different species. For example, in some species of

insects, during metamorphosis, the new midgut is reformed from

primitive embryonic cells. In some others the midgut is formed from

the posterior end.

" In Coleoptera (the beetles) the reconstruction of the stomatodoeum

(the foregut) and the proctodaeum (the hindgut) is carried out by the

renewed activity of the larval cells without andy accompying cell

destruction but in Lepidoptera (the butterflies) and Diptera (the

flies) new structures develop from imaginal rings which are

proliferating centres at the tips of the foregut and hindgut. "

" In Coleoptera the tubules are rebuilt from special cells in the

larval tubules while in Hymenoptera (the ants and bees) the larval

tubules break down completely and are replaced by new ones developing

from the tip of the proctodaeum (the hindgut) " (The Insects, English

Universities Press Ltd,)

These are just some examples of how homology does not trace back

similar embryologenic processes and events. Across the board,

radically different processes generate like parts in the presumed

evolutionary progressions. So not only are their great gaps in

differences in phyla and many species, but the very ways species

develop from embryonic stages differ dramatically from phyla to phyla

and species to various similar species. Rather than the evolutionary

tree being proved by graduations in similarities, even the

similarities are characteristically different from embryonic

developments.

CHEMICAL HOMOLOGY and Cytochrome C next . . .

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> There are at least two classes of evidences against the anatomical

> evolutionary tree: from chemical homology and from embryonic

> development.

I hope your chemical homology argument is much better than your

embryological argument and I look forward to reading it.

> The a common evolutionary model holds that gradual transitions from

> one species to another over time caused the development of lower

> organisms to higher organisms producing the groups of extremely

> diverse living things we observe today.

Good so far.

> If this were true we would

> also expect development from egg through embryo to follow these

> gradual developments.

Not exactly. This sounds to me like Haeckel's idea of the organism

recapitulating its evolutionary history as an embryo. This was

abandoned long ago, as you pointed out in one of your first posts.

Descent can be modified at any point in development, which is why we

do not expect to observe this.

> This would indicate that the genetic material

> responsible for the forelimbs of animals, for example, would be

> represented from their corresponding genes in corresponding origins of

> the embryos.

Yes -- good!

> What has actually been observed in developing embryos and from there

> genes is that there is not this gradual embryonic development as as

> anything that would be expected.

>

> " It does not matter where in the egg or the embryo the living

> substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from.

> Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be

> pressed back to similarity of position if the cells of the embryo or

> the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately

> differentiated " (Homology: An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University

> Press, by Sir Gavin De Beer).

I don't know when this book was published, but DeBeer died in 1972:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/library/speccoll/host/debeer.html

This man did not even live to see the age of embryological genetics!

So needless to say, your information is seriously outdated.

Unfortunately, you have leaped from the correct prediction that we

would expect homologous structures to be under homologous genetic

control to the idea that we would expect to see them generated from

the same region of the embryo.

Your premise is fatally flawed. It is, in fact, entirely refuted by a

single observation to which I have already referred: In Drosophila

(fruit fly), a mutation in the homeotic gene for the legs (that is,

the gene that controls the embryonic placement of the legs) causes

them to grow out of the head in place of the antennae.

By your reasoning, we could infer that this fruit fly did not descend

from a fruit fly that had the correct positioning of the legs because

its legs originated from a different region of the gastrula during

embryonic development. We directly observe, however, that this

particular fruit fly descends from the normal fruit fly, striking the

fatal blow to your premise.

The reason your premise does not work is that cells of the embryo are

not yet differentiated. There is nothing different about the cells in

the top, middle, or bottom of the layers of the blastula until they

receive a signal differentiating them into endoderm, mesoderm and

ectoderm. These cells at all time share the exact same genome. There

is yet still no permanent differentiation, and what differentiation

has taken place can then revert. There is additionally nothing

different about the cells within these layers until they are in turn

differentiated.

Thus, the positioning of the cell is NOT the origin of the structure.

What controls that cell's differentiation is the origin of the

structure. We have now known for quite some time that there are

" homeotic genes " that specifically control the anatomical placement of

structures during embryonic development. *These* are the true origin

of the structure.

Thus, common descent would predict not that homologous structures

develop from homologous regions of the embryo, but that homologous

structures are placed by homologous homeotic genes, and that the

mechanism of placement involves homologous chemical signals.

Since the fossil record, for example, suggests that fins evolved into

limbs, we should expect homologous genes and signals to be responsible

for fin and limb development in fish and tetrapod embryos

respectively.

In fish fins and tetrapod limbs, the hoxd-11 gene and the Sonic

hedgehog gene (for anyone wondering, yes I'm pretty sure this is

inspired by the video game character) are expressed during the

development of these parts. The hoxd-11 gene product controls the

spatial organization along the axis of the limb, while the Sonic

hedgehog gene controls the other two dimensions of the spatial

organization.

In early embryonic development, the timing and spatial expression of

these genes are identical, and lead to homologous structures called

" limb buds. " In late development, however, something dramatic

changes. In the fish, the hoxd-11 expression essentially ceases,

except in small amounts in the hind part of the fin. In the mouse,

the hoxd-11 continues to express and shifts directions within the

forelimb towards the head, providing development of the hand.

(Freeman, Biological Science, 2005).

I don't think all the details are worked out yet, but I am also not an

embryologist and I think that much more is known than what I know.

We are also well on our way to solving the " Unsolved Problem " of Sir

Gaven DeBeer, nearly 35 years after his death.

So, your challenge fails the test. The observations do not conflict

with evolutionary theory. What have you got for cytochrome c?

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

" evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and grown

people molest little kids. Take a Saturday and come with me into the inner city

and see how these precious little kids have to live. When you knock on a door,

and the kids are having to step over the bodies of their mother who is passed

out from a night of drinking and drugging, and look them in the face and tell

them that evil doesn't exist. Explain to 3 of my little bus kids why their

mother stabbed their dad to death a few weeks ago, simply because she got angry

because it took him too long to go to the fast food restaurant to get food. I'll

even challenge you even further,,,,,,,,get a book by a renowned Atlanta

cardiologist, the name of it is entitled " To Hell and Back " .....he was an

atheist...until he started paying attention to the NDE's of his

patients.......how he had one who was on a treadmill, and he had a heart attack,

and the good Dr himself was doing cpr,,,,and when he would bring him back...the

man was crying out for him not to stop,,,that everytime he stopped the cpr, the

man would die,,,,and he was in hell.

I'm telling you now....that is one of the most ludicrous statements that I have

ever heard anyone make. I'm not living in a fairy tale, I honestly believe that

you are.....how in the world can you even make a statement that evil doesn't

exist. You have a lot of hate inside of you , and that is very sad indeed.

Yes, children do need to be taught the truth, and we are teaching them. It is

strangely funny how someone can mention mohammed, or buddha, or any of the other

" gods " and no one says a thing. But let someone mention the name of Jesus, and

all heads turn. He has been turning heads for over 2000 years. And why would

that be offensive to you, is beyond me. And another thing.....if satan doesn't

exist, why is there a whole nother religion that follows him? You want to talk

about history, Jesus Christ is a historical fact. There have been many, many

documentaries on National Geo and the Discovery channels that have proven many

of the things the Bible talks about. Don't take my word for it....study it out

yourself. But please, don't make silly statements such as " evil " doesn't

exist. If this world we're living in is not evil,,,,then give me your

definition of it.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > ³

>> > you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of Jesus

>> Christ.

>> > The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord

leave

on

>> > a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same Jesus

>> you

>> > see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as He

>>

was.

>> > So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the Lord

>> came

>> > to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has

hands.........look

in

>> > the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of a

>> man's

>> > hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall

of

>> > the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote " ....and

so

>> > on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

>> > Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man

>> evolved

>> > from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to

>> summarize

>> > it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

>> > ²

>> >

>> > I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can take

your

>> > Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial sun don¹t

>> > shine. And I mean that respectfully.

>

[Guest guest]

I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

On 9/11/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and grown

people molest little kids.

<etc>

[Guest guest]

lol....hush ...it really isn't funny...... *smiling*

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

On 9/11/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and grown

people molest little kids.

<etc>

[Guest guest]

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

> I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

>

>

>

>

>

Don't you mean *implode*?

--s

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> lol....hush ...it really isn't funny...... *smiling*

>

Hi,

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply some kind of solidarity... I find

your whole position pretty enraging too (per se, nothing to do with

its christianity or religiosity) but I'm disentangling myself from an

endless and pointless argument.

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

> I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

>

>

>

> On 9/11/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> > " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and grown

people molest little kids.

> <etc>

[Guest guest]

why do you find it " enraging " for me to believe in a living God? And I

apologize for thinking that you thought the concept of " no evil " as silly as I

did....Its funny, I've not insulted anyone, or been anything but kind. Why

would that enrage anyone?

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

> I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

>

>

>

> On 9/11/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> > " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and

grown people molest little kids.

> <etc>

[Guest guest]

> Note, that I didn¹t say Œevil doesn¹t exist¹ without some qualification. Of

> course, then, what you provide below is a misquote, though it doesn¹t appear

> that you are doing it disingenuously. I don¹t think you know the difference.

>

> Of course there is evil. But there isn¹t some being or supernatural force that

> manipulates it, and it isn¹t something that Œexists¹ in the same sense that

> other Œthings¹ exist. It remains for human beings to judge what is evil and

> what is not. I would maintain, for instance, that your beloved Republican

> party is the generous provider of much evil in the world, and the murderer of

> hundreds of thousands of human beings. Yet apparently your bible with its

> devil allows you to hold your head high and lecture me about ³fact² and evil.

>

> The notion that you could read what I wrote and conclude that I would not

> agree that what you describe below is evil is pretty ludicrous. I appreciate

> the lecture, though. I only read part of it.

>

>

>

> " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and grown

> people molest little kids. Take a Saturday and come with me into the inner

> city and see how these precious little kids have to live. When you knock on a

> door, and the kids are having to step over the bodies of their mother who is

> passed out from a night of drinking and drugging, and look them in the face

> and tell them that evil doesn't exist. Explain to 3 of my little bus kids why

> their mother stabbed their dad to death a few weeks ago, simply because she

> got angry because it took him too long to go to the fast food restaurant to

> get food. I'll even challenge you even further,,,,,,,,get a book by a renowned

> Atlanta cardiologist, the name of it is entitled " To Hell and Back " .....he

> was an atheist...until he started paying attention to the NDE's of his

> patients.......how he had one who was on a treadmill, and he had a heart

> attack, and the good Dr himself was doing cpr,,,,and when he would bring him

> back...the man was crying out for him not to stop,,,that everytime he stopped

> the cpr, the man would die,,,,and he was in hell.

> I'm telling you now....that is one of the most ludicrous statements that I

> have ever heard anyone make. I'm not living in a fairy tale, I honestly

> believe that you are.....how in the world can you even make a statement that

> evil doesn't exist. You have a lot of hate inside of you , and that is very

> sad indeed. Yes, children do need to be taught the truth, and we are teaching

> them. It is strangely funny how someone can mention mohammed, or buddha, or

> any of the other " gods " and no one says a thing. But let someone mention the

> name of Jesus, and all heads turn. He has been turning heads for over 2000

> years. And why would that be offensive to you, is beyond me. And another

> thing.....if satan doesn't exist, why is there a whole nother religion that

> follows him? You want to talk about history, Jesus Christ is a historical

> fact. There have been many, many documentaries on National Geo and the

> Discovery channels that have proven many of the things the Bible talks about.

> Don't take my word for it....study it out yourself. But please, don't make

> silly statements such as " evil " doesn't exist. If this world we're living in

> is not evil,,,,then give me your definition of it.

>

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > ³

>>>> >> > you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of

Jesus

>>> >> Christ.

>>>> >> > The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord

leave

> on

>>>> >> > a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same

Jesus

>>> >> you

>>>> >> > see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as

He >>

> was.

>>>> >> > So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the

Lord

>>> >> came

>>>> >> > to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has

>>>> hands.........look

> in

>>>> >> > the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of

a

>>> >> man's

>>>> >> > hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the

wall

> of

>>>> >> > the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that

>>>> wrote " ....and

> so

>>>> >> > on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

>>>> >> > Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man

>>> >> evolved

>>>> >> > from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to

>>> >> summarize

>>>> >> > it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

>>>> >> > ²

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can take

your

>>>> >> > Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial sun

don¹t

>>>> >> > shine. And I mean that respectfully.

>> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

> You¹re right. Ignorant hypocrisy does that to me. Thank God I have the

> original.

>

>

>

> ³I think I just heard Gene's head explode.²

>

>

>

> On 9/11/06, <bible770@... <mailto:bible770%40bellsouth.net> >

> wrote:

>> > " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and grown

>> people molest little kids.

> <etc>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> You really are this clueless, aren¹t you? Of course, it isn¹t your beliefs per

> se that are infuriating. It¹s the fact that you believe that they are ³fact²

> and not a matter of belief has a bit to do with it, as well as the fact that

> you would impose them on society. The fact that you so misinterpret what

> people say (lecturing me about evil) is both infuriating and rather hilarious.

> The fact that you are a member of a party that is so antithetical to the words

> you throw around is typical of someone wallowing in your level of hypocrisy.

>

>

> -------Eriic

> -------why do you find it " enraging " for me to believe in a living God? And I

> apologize for thinking that you thought the =--------concept of " no evil " as

> silly as I did....Its funny, I've not insulted anyone, or been anything but

> kind. Why would that -----enrage anyone?

> -----

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>> >

>> >

>> > I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 9/11/06, <bible770@...

>> <mailto:bible770%40bellsouth.net> > wrote:

>>> > > " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and

>>> grown people molest little kids.

>> > <etc>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>

>> > why do you find it " enraging " for me to believe in a living God?

>

> ³I found offense with the comment you made that Gene was full of hate.

> That doesn't seem nice or helpful in any way, regardless of how

> feisty he might be at times. Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

>

> This group is very diverse and includes theists, atheists, deists and

> pantheists of many persuasions (sorry if I mised anyone). In fact,

> the owner of the list is an atheist.

>

> Deanna²

>

> I find offensive, and have always found offensive the notion that one

> particular set of religious beliefs is superior, and non-believers will go to

> hell, or the equivalent. Growing up Jewish, I encountered this from

> Christians, and, certainly this level of ignorance and arrogance is also the

> mark of quite a few Jewish people, and people of all persuasions. I don¹t mind

> saying that I do HATE this form of intolerance, and I also find that it leads

> to intolerant actions. Generally, upon examination, the hypocrisy is quite

> obvious.

>

[Guest guest]

ahhh....but Deanna,,,it is not enraging for someone to call someone ignorant????

Jesus definitely does say to turn the other cheek....but He didn't tell us to be

doormats

EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> why do you find it " enraging " for me to believe in a living God?

I found offense with the comment you made that Gene was full of hate.

That doesn't seem nice or helpful in any way, regardless of how

feisty he might be at times. Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

This group is very diverse and includes theists, atheists, deists and

pantheists of many persuasions (sorry if I mised anyone). In fact,

the owner of the list is an atheist.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 9/11/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

>

> why do you find it " enraging " for me to believe in a living God?

Again, I said it had nothing to do with your being religious or christian.

> Its funny, I've not insulted anyone, or been anything but kind. Why

> would that enrage anyone?

Because different people have different values. I'll take careful

thought over misguided kindness any day. I also value silence, which

I should have kept from the beginning.

As I said, I'm done with this one. Enough of hanging beliefs out like

dirty laundry for public scrutiny. It's rarely anything but

self-righteous ego play, and that includes my own display.

[Guest guest]

please tell me this.....and this will be the end of our discussion.....what does

the " republican party " have to do with any of the evil? As far as killing

thousands...is that now what happens with abortion...which is encouraged by the

democratic party? And I'm stating that because of your silly statement. You

apparently simply want to attack who I am...and that is ok. Like I said...study

it out. Get the book I recommended. And by the way....no lecture

intended...simply facts.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > ³

>>>> >> > you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of

Jesus

>>> >> Christ.

>>>> >> > The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord

leave

> on

>>>> >> > a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same

Jesus

>>> >> you

>>>> >> > see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as

He >>

> was.

>>>> >> > So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the

Lord

>>> >> came

>>>> >> > to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has

>>>> hands.........look

> in

>>>> >> > the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers

of

a

>>> >> man's

>>>> >> > hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the

wall

> of

>>>> >> > the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that

>>>> wrote " ....and

> so

>>>> >> > on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

>>>> >> > Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that

man

>>> >> evolved

>>>> >> > from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to

>>> >> summarize

>>>> >> > it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

>>>> >> > ²

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can

take

your

>>>> >> > Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial sun

don¹t

>>>> >> > shine. And I mean that respectfully.

>> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

geeze lady...give it a rest before your head really does explode

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>> >

>> >

>> > I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 9/11/06, <bible770@...

>> <mailto:bible770%40bellsouth.net> > wrote:

>>> > > " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other, and

>>> grown people molest little kids.

>> > <etc>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>geeze lady...give it a rest before your head really does explode

>

That would be too un-ladylike for Gene, to allow, ahem, *her* head to

explode. <g>

Suze Fisher

Web Design and Development

http://www.allurecreative.com

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

[Guest guest]

First and foremost, I am not a Democrat.

I see no point in now getting into a debate with you about the politics of the

Republicans. I'd say the killing of 100,000+ in Iraq for oil is about as evil as

human beings get.

However you view abortion (and obviously we don't agree) that does not excuse

other evil, as surely your Jesus would attest.

The notion that you try to propagate your belief system as fact is a sign,

evident in other 'true believers' that you are evil, in a way much more

consistent with the world, and suffering, than your fairly tale.

--------- Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> > ³

> >>>> >> > you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of

> Jesus

> >>> >> Christ.

> >>>> >> > The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the

Lord

> leave

> > on

> >>>> >> > a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same

> Jesus

> >>> >> you

> >>>> >> > see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him

as

> He >>

> > was.

> >>>> >> > So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before

the

> Lord

> >>> >> came

> >>>> >> > to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has

> >>>> hands.........look

> > in

> >>>> >> > the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers

> of

> a

> >>> >> man's

> >>>> >> > hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of

the

> wall

> > of

> >>>> >> > the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that

> >>>> wrote " ....and

> > so

> >>>> >> > on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

> >>>> >> > Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that

> man

> >>> >> evolved

> >>>> >> > from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were

to

> >>> >> summarize

> >>>> >> > it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

> >>>> >> > ²

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> > I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can

> take

> your

> >>>> >> > Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial

sun

> don¹t

> >>>> >> > shine. And I mean that respectfully.

> >> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You talkin' to me?

--------- Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > I think I just heard Gene's head explode.

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > On 9/11/06, <bible770@...

> >> <mailto:bible770%40bellsouth.net> > wrote:

> >>> > > " evil doesn't exist " tell me then, why do people kill each other,

and

> >>> grown people molest little kids.

> >> > <etc>

> >

> >