JAM
Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007
|
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 02 2008,19:46) | Quote (JAM @ Aug. 31 2008,16:43) | Quote (Daniel Smith @ Aug. 31 2008,15:02) | I'd like to see a step-by-step analysis of evolution in action. What was the precursor? |
The undifferentiated system. Quote | What were the intermediate steps? Why were they selected? |
Because they helped in reproduction. |
Why is it JAM, that whenever I ask for specifics about evolution in forums like these, the answers get more vague? |
There was nothing vague about my answer. How can an intelligent person demand a step-by-step analysis of something in action that took hundreds of millions of years, Dan?
And why can't you supply any specifics about design, given that you believe in it with your heart and soul?
Your demand is a dishonest one and you know it. Quote | Quote | Quote | For instance, it's often said that lungs evolved from swim bladders. So... What were the specific biochemical steps? |
Biochemical steps? You're just BSing now. You clearly don't even understand what the word "biochemical" even means.
|
I don't think it's that hard a word to understand, it's just the chemicals that life is made of. I know that all of life is essentially biochemical reactions. |
Right. So please explain why EVOLUTION would involve ANY "biochemical steps." You don't know what you're talking about. Quote | A lot of it is dependent on a chemical's reaction to water molecules. Protein folding seems to be largely dependent on keeping the correct amino acids on the outside for their ready interactions with water (among other things) and keeping the "oily" amino acids separated from water (among other things as well). |
"Keeping"? There's no "keeping" going on at all. You're assuming design from the start, because you're afraid to test a design hypothesis. You have no real faith. Quote | The strength/weakness of chemical bonds is probably the most important quality. |
This is so vague as to be meaningless. Quote | Quote | Quote | Are lungs and swim bladders made of the same proteins? |
Almost entirely--but not the same proteins, orthologous proteins. There's a difference, but understanding that is probably beyond your curiosity, because you are afraid of learning enough to test your assumptions. Quote | What are the differences? How was each difference created step by viable step? What was the selective advantage for each? Can these steps be recreated or verified in the lab? |
No. Your request is stupid. | Why? Why is it "stupid" to ask someone who firmly believes that all of life's systems are the product of evolution to explain how one of them came to be via evolution? |
Now you're being dishonest again. It's not a matter of firm belief like yours, it's a conclusion based on the evidence, none of which supports your firm belief. That's why you run away from evidence. Quote | Surely you have specific, lab-tested evolutionary pathways for scores of living systems. |
Why would I? We only have specific pathways for subsystems. The problem for you is, when we analyze a new subsystem, we don't find anything inconsistent with evolutionary pathways. You, of course, deal with this evidence by never analyzing any systems or subsystems. You are afraid to do so. Quote | After all, you are a scientist, correct? |
I am, and you reject the scientific method itself, correct? Quote | "Homologous sequences are orthologous if they were separated by a speciation event: when a species diverges into two separate species, the divergent copies of a single gene in the resulting species are said to be orthologous." (from Wiki) |
Cut/paste doesn't equal understanding. Quote | So what was the original sequence for the undifferentiated ancestor of modern lung/swim bladder species? |
This is gibberish. Sequence of what? Are you saying that lungs and swim bladders are species? Quote | You should be able to re-create the steps - correct? |
Why should I be able to do so? We extrapolate back to the nearest species to a common ancestor and it becomes obvious. Quote | Quote | What were the design steps, Dan? What was the intelligent rationale behind each step? Why are you such a dishonest hypocrite? |
Is this a dodge? |
It's a question. You firmly believe that lungs and swim bladders were designed and not descended from a common ancestor, don't you? Quote | Are you attempting to change the subject? |
No, I'm addressing your lack of faith in your position. Quote | You have not answered my questions with anything above the vaguest vaguery,... |
That's a lie. I've pointed out why they are sleazy and ignorant in very specific ways. Quote | Quote | Quote | Are these steps able to be specified down to the biochemical level? |
More BS. You don't know what you're talking about. |
Humor me. |
There aren't "biochemical steps" in evolution, you arrogant fool.
Quote | Quote | The most important field is comparative genomics, one you ran away from studying, remember? |
I don't remember "running away" from anything JAM. |
You're delusional. Quote | A lot of it is over my head, but I am perfectly willing to discuss anything you have the patience to discuss with me. |
Then let's pick up your thread where it left off, and have you address the fact that not a single one of your predictions in comparative genomics were supported by the evidence. In fact, they all were completely inconsistent with the evidence.
How have you changed your hypothesis to accommodate the evidence?
|