Were the wolves on Noah’s ark carrying all of the genetic information that would generate the morphological changes to produce the dachshund and great dane?

dedalus on February 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM

I sure don’t know. Wolves and dogs are very similar, my guess is that they are the same kind, but I don’t know.

That’s the line between micro and maco evolution, if the information for the change is already available withing the DNA then its doable and that’s micro-evolution (mere adaptation). If the change would require information NOT already contained withing the DNA, that would be macro-evolution, and it is not doable. It’s not doable because there is no natural process by which the required information can be generated.

Maxx on February 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Were the wolves on Noah’s ark carrying all of the genetic information that would generate the morphological changes to produce the dachshund and great dane?

God bless ya’ Maxx, but you can do the same thing, and you’ll probably get a better answer than I can give you.

RightOFLeft on February 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Thank you sir and God Bless you too. And yes, looking up all there is to know about jellyfish, that should be big fun, I’ll do that one day when I think my heart can stand the excitement. :-)

Be sure to reference the bottom of the page were scientists/evolutionists settle the matter with no uncertain words.

To save you some time, horse evolution is horsepucky.

Pretty sure he is from the audio of this discussion he had a while back.

http://kgovarchives.com/bel/2003/20030828-BEL171.mp3

No, because the animals claimed to be in the chain had “X” number of ribs to begin, then “y” number of ribs, then it changes again, then back again. It’s nuts, I don’t have the links right now, if I find them later, I will post them.

Maxx on February 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Ok.
I don’t need links because I had problems with the horse line anyway.

Couldn’t that have just been a useless mutation that was carry to other generations? I don’t believe that evolution specifically states that all mutations are or have to be beneficial.

jmarcure on February 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM

No, because the animals claimed to be in the chain had “X” number of ribs to begin, then “y” number of ribs, then it changes again, then back again. It’s nuts, I don’t have the links right now, if I find them later, I will post them.

Until you start abusing it that is.

As for horses, you realize the so called early horses had different numbers of ribs don’t you?
Maxx on February 13, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Couldn’t that have just been a useless mutation that was carry to other generations? I don’t believe that evolution specifically states that all mutations are or have to be beneficial.

I’m talking what you believe not what I believe.

Maxx on February 13, 2009 at 2:05 PM

I don’t really know that much about jellyfish. I remembered something from a nature show about jellyfish and googled “jellyfish.” I used up just about everything I know about jellyfish in my last two replies to you. God bless ya’ Maxx, but you can do the same thing, and you’ll probably get a better answer than I can give you.

What Cambrian? That’s 500 million years before you think the Earth even existed. There’s no jellyfish in the bible.

RightOFLeft on February 13, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I’m talking what you believe not what I believe.

The Archeopteryx is not a hoax;

oldvannes on February 13, 2009 at 1:29 PM

OK, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that Archeopteryx was not an intentional hoax, nevertheless its been found to be a pure bird and not any kind of transitional. You do realize that Archeopteryx is not mentioned on any of the links you provide, don’t you?

As for horses, you realize the so called early horses had different numbers of ribs don’t you? That doesn’t fit any kind of evolution model. Furthermore, some of the animals said to be in the horse evolution chain are still around today. Of course they didn’t know this at the time the claims were made.

And if we go back to the Cambrian, will we not find that jellyfish had that same ability from the beginning?

Maxx on February 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM

What Cambrian? That’s 500 million years before you think the Earth even existed. There’s no jellyfish in the bible.

You wont’ get into it because no such mechanism exists — you completely undermined your whole spiel of how an eye evolves. The faith you have in evolution is completely blind, pardon the pun.

Richard Romano on February 13, 2009 at 1:49 PM

You have no clue what I’m saying.
Taken in context with the rest of my “spiel” it’s pretty obvious that I am questioning the viability of the evolution of the eye. How you can say I have blind faith in evolution really escapes me as the three posts I’ve made question evolution. I fully expected to be attacked by the pro evolution side for my lack of faith in evolution but never did I consider being attacked for my blind faith in it.

(hint: DONT EXIST)

kinda weird isn’t it…. we have mostly SMALL primates, with gorillas being the exception, and we have “Lucy”, who is human-like, but nothing in between.

oh well, maybe if we just spent 40 years digging up the Olvadai gorge in East AFrica we’d find some missing link

oh wait…. we have tried that…

hm… well….. well…. maybe the fossils aren’t there, just too old… i mean trilobites are 500MYA, and we don’t have any fossils of those!

oh, we do? hmm…. so where’s all the pre-pliestocene ‘missing links’?

well, well, maybe, um, our ‘common primate ancestor’ was actually closer to humans, and every gibbon or orangutang is actually a step in DEVOLUTION.

yeah, that MUST be it….. *sarc*

This is a typically ignorant comment — Carolus Linnaeus and Gregor Mendel were profoundly interested and influential in biology, and one wrote BEFORE Darwin and the other was a contemporary of him.

I never claimed that Christians never contributed to science. It’s well known that Newton, Francis Bacon, and Mendel, like you say, were Christians and creationists.(Unsurprsing, considering they were pre Darwin. His theory didn’t enjoy wide acceptance until very late in his life). Mendel’s work, however, wasn’t redicovered and applied to evolution until after Darwin died by Hugo de Vries. In fact, Newton considered Biblical Prophecy to be valid scientific evidence, as much as anything as you could find in nature. In fact, I will cheerfully say that the overwhelming majority of influencial sceintists after the renissance were either Jews or Christians.

What I’m talking about is 20th century and modern creationists. Thanks to Darwin, millions of fundies know what a “bacterial flagellum” is, something that wouldn’t have happened without him. It’s nice to see so many people get intersted in biology (even if its for the wrong reasons.)

jmarcure on February 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM

I think you have a fair question, but you’re making a mathematical argument without doing any math.

What are the odds of the critter surviving?

This is a actual number. What is it?

To beat the odds and evolve it could not have been a single critter or even a group of critters.

You don’t know that without actually making a calculation.

I won’t even get into how or why this suddenly light sensitive cell passed on to other generation and why it got connected to the brain and the brain evolved to understand the signal even though it also concerns scale.

jmarcure on February 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM

You wont’ get into it because no such mechanism exists — you completely undermined your whole spiel of how an eye evolves. The faith you have in evolution is completely blind, pardon the pun.

Happy Birthday Darwin. If nothing else, you got a lot of fundamentalists interested in biology.

justfinethanks on February 12, 2009 at 10:38 PM

This is a typically ignorant comment — Carolus Linnaeus and Gregor Mendel were profoundly interested and influential in biology, and one wrote BEFORE Darwin and the other was a contemporary of him.

Evolution-only is doing such a good job in the public schools that people like justfinethanks are completely ignorant about science’s history. Sad.

RightOFLeft on February 13, 2009 at 1:28 PM

And if we go back to the Cambrian, will we not find that jellyfish had that same ability from the beginning?

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/transitionalfossils.htm

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution.htm

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-013Spring-2006/CourseHome/index.htm

Please enlighten us as to what those biology books have to say as to the function of eyes before they were eyes. What were those “other needs” that were met by the undeveloped eye? Do you even have a guess?

Maxx on February 13, 2009 at 12:02 PM

A classic example:

Some jellyfish also have ocelli: light-sensitive organs that do not form images but which can detect light, and are used to determine up from down, responding to sunlight shining on the water’s surface.

Please enlighten us as to what those biology books have to say as to the function of eyes before they were eyes. What were those “other needs” that were met by the undeveloped eye? Do you even have a guess?

Maxx on February 13, 2009 at 12:02 PM

You eye is a perfect example of my scale and odds problem with how evolution works.
Let me try to ask it this way. We have our critter. It doesn’t matter how complex it is how big it is or anything like that. One day something happens and a cell on the critter can now detect light. Again it doesn’t matter how it happen because the important part is that there is now a cell that detects light. Wow the first step in the evolution of an eye which is very cool. What are the odds of the critter surviving? Let’s say some thing happens that kills the critter. Again don’t get side tracked by the what and how because it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the critter is dead. Well that is the end of the eye but we have eyes so again I ask. What about the scale of evolution? To beat the odds and evolve it could not have been a single critter or even a group of critters. The start of the eye had to be on a massive scale and not in just one part of the world. To beat the odds life must be the normal state of the universe but we do not find complex life anywhere else other then Earth. And we have been looking on Mars which is not that different for Earth.
 
I won’t even get into how or why this suddenly light sensitive cell passed on to other generation and why it got connected to the brain and the brain evolved to understand the signal even though it also concerns scale.

Baptists are fundamentalist. The South has only recently joined the modern world. Prior to the late ’70’s the South was culturally a separate civilization, very 19th century. This was told to me by Southerners.

oldvannes on February 13, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Oh, here we go with the insults and condescension, this is what evolutionists always run to.