Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Noose001 said:
  1. Self replication RNA only happens in controlled lab experiment, can not happen in a natural setting.
Click to expand...
And you know this because you personally have observed all natural settings on the early earth? No, you are expressing an uninformed opinion, which is scientifically worthless.
  1. Both DNA and RNA are made of nucleobases but the double helix structure of a DNA makes it difficult to the nucleobases to combine and recombine in replication because unlike RNA, a DNA nucleobase combine with other nucleobases at three points - from both ends and also opposite strand which makes it hard for the process to happen (+ many other difficulties).
Click to expand...
How is this relevant to RNA? They are different chemicals with different properties.
  1. RNA being a single stand has a nucleobase exposed on all sides and makes it very easy to combine and recombine with other bases. But base combination is nothing more than a phosphate-Oxygen bond. There’s no life in such a bond just like there’s no life in O-H bond.
Click to expand...
I have already said that RNA is not alive.
  1. We have self replicating proteins, why isn’t there a protein world?
Click to expand...
There is a protein first hypothesis for abiogenesis, see here. I suggest that you study the science a little first before asking questions; that paper is dated 2005. There are a number of possible abiogenesis hypotheses being investigated, including RNA world and protein first.
 
Homer’s work is partly historical, but only to a degree. They aren’t an account of the war, but more of a wartime story of “the psychology, the wrath, vengeance and death of individual heroes” (wikipedia) with the Trojan war as a backstory. It would be like their version of Saving Private Ryan or Fury; because who doesn’t like a good war story?

Unless you can show me a scale transitioning into a feather (with as many fossils as you need), evolution can’t explain where feathers came from, let alone how birds evolved…
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
And you know this because you personally have observed all natural settings on the early earth? No, you are expressing an uninformed opinion, which is scientifically worthless.
Click to expand...
I know this because it is a fact that nucleic acids are not stable, that’s why they need an enabling environment inside a cell.
rossum said:
How is this relevant to RNA? They are different chemicals with different properties.
Click to expand...
I was explaining why we don’t have self replicating DNA and even if we do, they mean nothing outside a cell.
rossum said:
I have already said that RNA is not alive.
Click to expand...
But you are saying self replication is a step towards life because it is one of the properties of life. At what point does self replication mean to live?
rossum said:
There is a protein first hypothesis for abiogenesis, see here. I suggest that you study the science a little first before asking questions; that paper is dated 2005. There are a number of possible abiogenesis hypotheses being investigated, including RNA world and protein first.
Click to expand...
Self replicating RNAs and proteins can not become alive. This is what your theories need to demonstrate. At what point in their phyco-chemical changes do they become purposeful(Biochemical)? A Biochemical process is purposeful in that the end product is needed for the next step.
 
rossum said:
Not faith at all. I have evidence, which I referenced and which you ignored.
Click to expand...
Not ignored; refuted.
rossum said:
If you don’t accept macroevolution then show me a Precambrian rabbit fossil …
Click to expand...
Good try. The truth of the conditional is what is in question; the burden of supporting evidence is on you.

Darwin recognized this very point as falsifying his theory, “Our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed” (Darwin, Origin of Species).
 
Gigantals said:
I just want to publicly thank Freddy here for being extremely responsible on this forum, by reminding us that we all need to remember to reference our work (and hunting down our source when we forget to).
Click to expand...
Exactly. Hardly anyone references anything anymore
 
Noose001 said:
But you are saying self replication is a step towards life because it is one of the properties of life. At what point does self replication mean to live?
Click to expand...
As I said above, self-replication combined with a metabolism. That is a process to extract energy from the environment. The metabolism provides the energy to maintain the organism against entropy and usually assists in self-replication as well.

Self-replicating chemicals, like RNA or proteins are not alive. Energy extraction processes, like the Oklo reactor are not alive. It is the combination of the two which is life: self-reproduction coupled with a metabolism.
 
o_mlly said:
Good try. The truth of the conditional is what is in question; the burden of supporting evidence is on you.
Click to expand...
So, you have no explanation for the presence of rabbits on earth. Why on earth do you expect me to follow your ideas when you cannot even explain such a simple thing?

What is your explanation for rabbits?
 
o_mlly said:
Neither do you. That’s the point.
Click to expand...
I do, it is just that you do not believe it. You can’t even provide the beginning of an explanation. I have the evidence. Your rejection of the evidence does not mean that it does not exist.
 
Gigantals said:
Unless you can show me a scale transitioning into a feather (with as many fossils as you need), evolution can’t explain where feathers came from, let alone how birds evolved…
Click to expand...
I suppose next you’ll be suggesting that there’s some sort of wierd creature that has both feathers and scales.

Ooh, look. A chicken. How cute…
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
what do you think you have been doing all this time?
Click to expand...
A scientific alternative is only proper to a scientific hypothesis. You don’t have one.
Click to expand...
We know that you don’t think so. You keep saying this. We all accept it. There’s not much point in repeating it constantly. It’s understood. 10-4. Roger that. Message received and understood. Loud and clear. Fair enough. Can’t put it clearer. So there’s nothing I can further do to persuade you that I have a scientifically valid proposal.

So don’t consider it an alternative if you don’t want to. But if you are asked how the biosphere has reached this point, we get silence. Static. You appear to have no idea. Nothing to add. No thoughts of your own on the matter.

It’s bemusing. You spend all this time on these threads doing your best to tell those who understand the evolutionary process that they are wrong but not once have you ever given any indication on how you think things came to be. So again…

Whatever you think of anyone else’s opinion, what is your opinion?
 
No, I’m just looking for the transitional fossil to prove the link between scales and feathers (there’s none by the way, the scales are perfectly formed, and the feathers are no more than variations of modern feathers)

On the other hand, feathers have more in common with hair…
 
Gigantals said:
No, I’m just looking for the transitional fossil to prove the link between scales and feathers…
Click to expand...
You say it can’t happen that scales can turn to feathers yet I’m having dinner tonight when I’m going to take out from the fridge and stick in the oven a creature which has both. And we have already discovered the gene that changes one to the other and can actually turn them on: How Reptilian Scales Became Feathers

“In addition, the gene replacement led to the identification of several intermediate types of shape from scales to more complex forms of filamentous feathers. Some of the shapes identified resemble the filamentous appendages associated with feathered dinosaur fossils, whilst other shapes formed have similar characteristics to those found in the feathers of modern birds.”

There’s more to this that digging up bits of rock you know.
 
Where’s the transitional fossils? Surely you can prove this happened in the past at least once?

That experiment produced nothing more than individual deformed scales, not a feather or anything needed to sustain it. These deformed scales can’t even be compared to any fossil evidence to prove it could eventually become something more.

'At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.]

Feathers and scales form in two different ways. Scales form through ridges on the skin, whilst feathers require a follicle to grow.

Whereas feathers are much more like hair:
-They require a follicle to grow
-Growth can be stimulated by removing the hair/feather from the follicle
-Sensory neurons are stimulated and function the same way
-Muscles allow manual movement and orientation of the structures
-There is an endocrine function of the follicle and structures

Those filamentous appendages? You and I both have them. They’re called hair. Unless those have barbs on their rachis, they really have no reason to be called feathers (unless of course, someone wants to call them feathers because they have no other structure on the organisms to p(name removed by moderator)oint early feathers). Try this (it analyses the filament and their possible identity): https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_19.pdf

I’m not the one who needs to be digging up rocks in this case. There is not a single transitional fossil between a scale and a feather, a scale and a ‘filamentous appendage’, a filamentous appendage and a feather, or a hair and a feather. The oldest feather fossils we have found are fully formed, and are so similar to 'modern feathers that we could pass them off as a variation of them if they weren’t so hard and colourless. Archaeopteryx, found 150Ma, has perfect feathers specifically designed for each body part.

There are no transitionary feathers in the fossil record. There are no animals with protofeathers of any kind. The only place that these manifest is under lab conditions.
 
Gigantals said:
Where’s the transitional fossils? Surely you can prove this happened in the past at least once?
Click to expand...
If you continue to get your information from sites with ‘creation’ in the title then you are going to limit your quest for knowledge. All you need to do is use the search terms ‘scales to feathers fossils’ and you’ll have enough reading to keep you busy all weekend.

This is the first one - a more scientific report.

Loading…

www.pnas.org

And this is another on the very first page which contains this:

Last year, scientists announced the discovery in Siberia of Kulindadromeus, a small, 150 million-year-old, plant-eating dinosaur that had both scales and feathers. Most dinosaurs had scales, not feathers, fossil analysis concludes | Science | The Guardian

If you’re not going to be bothered even to attempt to find the answers to your questions before you’ve asked them, then this will be a short discussion.

You might respond to this question: Why didn’t you look for the evidence yourself?
 
Last edited:
I can’t tell. It’s kind of funny to be honest. One second it’s what I expect. Another second, everything just went all totally wrong. We should just focus on evolution. The beginnings of the universe are similar but different argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top