Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[rhutchin]

Can science explain how insects survived the Flood?

I think, Yes.

OK, then what's the explanation?

Don't know. Nonetheless, I think science can explain it. Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

But when "evolutionists" can't explain something, that's a huge problem for evolution.

Not really. Evolutionists explain things well. They just can't get biology experiments to substantiate their explanations. They have active imaginations as their explanations attest.

 

[rhutchin]

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

And the positive evidence for this claim is found, where?

Pretty much every issue of Science or Nature magazine.

 

[Mageth]

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

And the positive evidence for this claim is found, where?

Pretty much every issue of Science or Nature magazine.

In other words, it's still the same old argument from ignorance you've been making all along.

 

[Mageth]

evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.
...
The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

Another funny thing about this is that rhutchin tries to use "individual animals can speciate and change over time" [sic] to support "the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today". While at the same time denying that "diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor" is possible. Yet the timescale back to a "universal common ancestor" is several hundred thousand times as long as the time back to the alleged Ark. (In reality, that is; rhutchin frames his arguments in fantasy).

The issue here is the process that can produce the result. If you start with two animals, such as those coming off the ark, biological processes can lead to the evolution into many species. Start with two canines and you can get all the canines we see today. Start with two felines coming off the ark and you can get all the felines observable today.

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

No, the issue is still that you continue to only assert an argument from ignorance. And you continue with the humorous bit where you assert that there are processes that can evolve all the species we see today from base pairs in a very few thousand years but deny that there even may be processes via which all the species we see today could have evolved given several hundred thousand times as long. That is pure comedy, rhutchin. It's so comically absurd that it actually makes me suspect that you are a Poe.

And on top of that you continue with fundamental mistakes such as "If you start with one original organism...".

And you continue to assume facts not in evidence, e.g. that pairs of animals came off an Ark. The biblical flood/Ark stories are clearly myths, and are not supported by any evidence of record.

 

[rhutchin]

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

And the positive evidence for this claim is found, where?

Pretty much every issue of Science or Nature magazine.

In other words, it's still the same old argument from ignorance you've been making all along.

Kinda novel way to describe Science and Nature magazines.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In other words, it's still the same old argument from ignorance you've been making all along.

Kinda novel way to describe Science and Nature magazines.

But a standard way of describing how you attempt to utilize actual science to support your superstition.

 

[Mageth]

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

And the positive evidence for this claim is found, where?

Pretty much every issue of Science or Nature magazine.

In other words, it's still the same old argument from ignorance you've been making all along.

Kinda novel way to describe Science and Nature magazines.

Even your attempts at backhanded humor fall flat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I didn't know that 'backhanded' was one of the humours....

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

And the positive evidence for this claim is found, where?

Pretty much every issue of Science or Nature magazine.

Theories are accepted as theories until they are actually shown to not match reality.
Every science article that does NOT attempt to prove that complexity can be accumulated without intelligence is not evidence towards your claim that it cannot. Doesn't work that way.
You have to have actual evidence showing that the flaw in the Evolution model is that complexity cannot be explained. Not 'isn't' or 'hasn't been' or 'hasn't been to my personal satisfaction.'
If you're going to say 'cannot' then show 'cannot.'

 

[Jokodo]

Still the same old argument from ignorance, and thus still fatally flawed.

And rife with errors. For example, in your "conclusion":
Evolution is "diverse organisms tracking back to a universal common ancestor".
Once again, EVOLUTION (descent with modification from a common ancestor) IS A FACT. The Theory of Evolution would be the explanation as to how evolution happens. You keep repeating this same basic mistake, either intentionally or unintentionally. Which is it?

If the issue in evolution was actually "descent with modification from a common ancestor," there would be no problem. Biology research supports this; it is a fact However, both sides agree to this. Common descent takes all current animals back to the ark. What the evolutionist insists upon is universal common descent, something that takes us back from the ark to a single organism. That part is not fact; there is no biological mechanism that can start with a single organism and evolve into many different animals.

Do you even realise that you're contradicting yourself here? If the millions of species today trace there origin back to a few hundred samples on the ark, there gotta be a biological mechanism thatcan start with a single organism and evolve it into many different animals. Your Biblical "explanation" doesn't get rid of any of the problems, real or alleged, and just adds another one through its tight time constraints.

 

[Kharakov]

Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

I call this remarkable survival device a "log".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

I call this remarkable survival device a "log".

And how many insects can last ten months on a "log?"

 

[Bronzeage]

Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

I call this remarkable survival device a "log".

A world wide flood would be a rich environment for most insects. There would be plenty of floating debris and a lot of food, so that's not a big deal. There is one technical aspect of the story which could be tested in today's environment.


Genesis 9, 24

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8, 6-12

After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

The dove found a "freshly plucked olive leaf", after a 150 day immersion. This means either an olive tree can survive nearly seven weeks underwater, or parts of the Earth was no immersed. We could put an olive tree in a tank and observe its leaves after week seven. If there are no fresh leaves, we can conclude the the flood was not actually "world wide."

 

[rhutchin]

Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

I call this remarkable survival device a "log".

And how many insects can last ten months on a "log?"

Perhaps a "log" but not necessarily. As all of us could see from the tsunami that hit Japan, debris can float in the ocean for months and this debris may be composed of pretty much anything that the tsunami carried along. I don't think we should be surprised if clumps of debris formed as a consequence of the flood and insects then found a home on which to ride out the flood. How long might insects live in such an environment? The creationists would answer, many months. So, now science has a target to aim at and try to disprove. Has it been done? Has the creationist speculation been proven false? Not that I am aware. If it had, even you guys would have been quick to cite the study - which you do not - suggesting to me that science has not proven the creationist claim to be false.

 

[Bronzeage]

Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

I call this remarkable survival device a "log".

And how many insects can last ten months on a "log?"

Perhaps a "log" but not necessarily. As all of us could see from the tsunami that hit Japan, debris can float in the ocean for months and this debris may be composed of pretty much anything that the tsunami carried along. I don't think we should be surprised if clumps of debris formed as a consequence of the flood and insects then found a home on which to ride out the flood. How long might insects live in such an environment? The creationists would answer, many months. So, now science has a target to aim at and try to disprove. Has it been done? Has the creationist speculation been proven false? Not that I am aware. If it had, even you guys would have been quick to cite the study - which you do not - suggesting to me that science has not proven the creationist claim to be false.

How long can an olive tree survive underwater and produce a leaf when exposed to the air?

 

[rhutchin]

Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

I call this remarkable survival device a "log".

A world wide flood would be a rich environment for most insects. There would be plenty of floating debris and a lot of food, so that's not a big deal. There is one technical aspect of the story which could be tested in today's environment.

I wrote my earlier response before I read your comment. If we both say the same thing, I guess we both recognize the obvious.

 

[rhutchin]

How long can an olive tree survive underwater and produce a leaf when exposed to the air?

I think that's a great question. Another - could an olive tree grow on a clump of debris?

 

[rhutchin]

Still the same old argument from ignorance, and thus still fatally flawed.

And rife with errors. For example, in your "conclusion":
Evolution is "diverse organisms tracking back to a universal common ancestor".
Once again, EVOLUTION (descent with modification from a common ancestor) IS A FACT. The Theory of Evolution would be the explanation as to how evolution happens. You keep repeating this same basic mistake, either intentionally or unintentionally. Which is it?

If the issue in evolution was actually "descent with modification from a common ancestor," there would be no problem. Biology research supports this; it is a fact However, both sides agree to this. Common descent takes all current animals back to the ark. What the evolutionist insists upon is universal common descent, something that takes us back from the ark to a single organism. That part is not fact; there is no biological mechanism that can start with a single organism and evolve into many different animals.

Do you even realise that you're contradicting yourself here? If the millions of species today trace there origin back to a few hundred samples on the ark, there gotta be a biological mechanism that can start with a single organism and evolve it into many different animals. Your Biblical "explanation" doesn't get rid of any of the problems, real or alleged, and just adds another one through its tight time constraints.

The distinction here is that speciation is contained from the ark forward. All the canine species can be traced to the pair of canines that walked off the ark. Same for felines, etc.

The issue with regard to evolution is whether a non-canine, non-feline, non-whatever organism can evolve into canines, felines, etc. For this outcome, there is no demonstrated biological process although there is speculation on the part of evolutionists on how this might happen.

 

[rhutchin]

In other words, it's still the same old argument from ignorance you've been making all along.

Kinda novel way to describe Science and Nature magazines.

But a standard way of describing how you attempt to utilize actual science to support your superstition.

Aren't we all relying on the science community's research for support for our claims - whether creationist or evolutionist? We all review the same research to see which position it supports.

 

[rhutchin]

Theories are accepted as theories until they are actually shown to not match reality.

Not exactly. We start with speculation (I wonder if...) that then becomes hypothesis (Hmmm, this speculation seems consistent with what we know.). Then scientific research enters the picture. If, after some critical mass of research, the hypothesis is maintained, it is elevated to theory. In the case of evolution, speciation has been elevated to theory as many experiments support it. The idea of one organism evolving into another organism is still speculation because no known biological process can account for such evolution and no experiment has established that there is such a process. When people say that evolution is fact, the evolution in view is speciation only and speciation has not been shown to take any organism in a direction that could produce a different organism entirely.