Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[rhutchin]

I thought the Flood was supposed to destroy all life except that which Noah saved. Am I missing something? Why is rhutchin conveniently ignoring this?

According to Genesis, God said, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Then, "On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah."

What's the issue?

You skipped a passage.

The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. ² Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, ³ and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. ⁴ Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

I didn't see that this passage added anything to the other passages in addressing the issue raised by GenesisNemesis.

It's curious how Noah was supposed to know which animals were clean and unclean, given that the two categories weren't documented until the book of Exodus, supposedly written down centuries later. But that's another issue.

Knowledge can exist before it is recorded in written form. Within the context of the Bible, we have God making the distinction between clean and unclean to Noah and then later to Moses. I don't see an issue.

What's even more curious is the much larger amount of livestock and fodder Noah was required to cram into his barge. Many creationists ignore this when performing their mass calculations and only count a pair of all animals.

"...cram into the ark (barge)..."? Why should we think that there was not ample room for all without cramming anything in? Are you creating a strawman where none need exist?

 

[rhutchin]

Maybe rhutchin is in such a blissful, ignorant state that he can never actually comprehend anything that contradicts what the bible says.

OK. Let's put something on the table. You allude to a contradiction here. Can you be specific in stating what you had in mind and tell us why it is a contradiction (e.g., citations demonstrating such)?

 

[Bronzeage]

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

OK. List one and the citation to back it up. More than one, with citations, if you want.

I don't have to list citations which state something is impossible. I only need to present one impossibility and leave it to you to explain. You have already failed to explain the olive tree. For another example, how did the koala bears get back to Australia?

Wait, let me guess. They drifted on floating debris which contained eucalyptus trees, right?

 

[Kharakov]

Maybe rhutchin is in such a blissful, ignorant state that he can never actually comprehend anything that contradicts what the bible says.

OK. Let's put something on the table. You allude to a contradiction here.

I suppose it's your behavior, engaging in arguments against natural law, arguments for various fables (such as the ark), arguments against endless genealogies (evolution), despite the bible specifically saying you should not do so (which you will argue against as well- rather, you will argue that the bible doesn't mean what it says, but instead means what you want it to mean):

Show

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

Can you be specific in stating what you had in mind and tell us why it is a contradiction (e.g., citations demonstrating such)?

Do you understand how your behaviors contradict the teachings of the bible? You're pursuing topics which create controversy, and drive minds away from God, rather than pointing towards various unarguable, fundamental truths about reality, because you just don't fucking get it. Once the truths are solidly planted within their minds, then they will know.

 

[James Brown]

What's even more curious is the much larger amount of livestock and fodder Noah was required to cram into his barge. Many creationists ignore this when performing their mass calculations and only count a pair of all animals.

"...cram into the ark (barge)..."? Why should we think that there was not ample room for all without cramming anything in?

Because there wasn't enough room.

You can calculate this for yourself. Tell us how many different species of animals Noah took onto the ark. Separate that number into clean and unclean. Calculate the adult mass of each animal. Multiply that mass figure by two for the unclean animals and by seven for the clean animals. Calculate the daily caloric needs for each species of animal, then multiply that figure by 365. Finally, calculate the volume that mass would occupy, and you'll see that there was not room enough on a 450-foot barge to occupy that space, as well as leave room for berths, food storage, exercise areas, waste handling and disposal, etc.

The only way to make the numbers work out is to make the first figure--the number of different species Noah took onto the ark--small enough. For example, some Creationists have tried to make the figures add up by arguing that Noah only took on genera, rather than species. But if something like that was the case, then in the few thousand years since the supposed flood we would have seen a kind of hyper-evolution never even dreamed of by biologists, as a single genera that walked off the ark then spread and evolved into the numerous species we observe today. For example, Zosterops is a genus of bird that have roughly 78 species, to name just one example. That's a new species every 50 years or so since the flood. There are genera of beetles which have species that number in the thousands.

And of course, don't forget the dinosaurs. Many creationists believe that Noah also took aboard the ark a pair of T-Rexes, Brachiosaurs, and Gigantosaurs (all so they can promptly die after the flood--what a waste.) Plus all those dinosaurs need food--but not each other!--for a year.

So start the ball rolling, rhutchin. Give us a number. How many different species of animals did Noah take on the ark? But be careful. Pick a number that's too high, and you run out of room. Too low, and you have to imagine post-flood evolution occurring on a scale far beyond the fever-dreams of Darwin.

 

[Malintent]

I find all the natural phenomina that adds up to 'create' all the processes we observe in the world to be remarkable, facinating, beautiful, and absolutely wonderful (if not totally brutal at times)... Whereas the creationist "god did it and that's it" knowledge-ender is just so... unholy, unremarkable, and too simlistic to really matter. Complexity is beatiful. Don't be scared of it.

If creator god is "out there" I would imagine "he" would be pretty pissed off at those that intentionally obfuscate all the trouble that really went into creating our universe (or just our world - never got a clear answer on that)...

 

[rhutchin]

If creator god is "out there" I would imagine "he" would be pretty pissed off at those that intentionally obfuscate all the trouble that really went into creating our universe...

What trouble? The mode of creation was, "And God said,..." Doesn't seem to involve any "trouble."

 

[rhutchin]

What's even more curious is the much larger amount of livestock and fodder Noah was required to cram into his barge. Many creationists ignore this when performing their mass calculations and only count a pair of all animals.

"...cram into the ark (barge)..."? Why should we think that there was not ample room for all without cramming anything in?

Because there wasn't enough room.

You can calculate this for yourself. Tell us how many different species of animals Noah took onto the ark. Separate that number into clean and unclean. Calculate the adult mass of each animal. Multiply that mass figure by two for the unclean animals and by seven for the clean animals. Calculate the daily caloric needs for each species of animal, then multiply that figure by 365. Finally, calculate the volume that mass would occupy, and you'll see that there was not room enough on a 450-foot barge to occupy that space, as well as leave room for berths, food storage, exercise areas, waste handling and disposal, etc.

The calculation has been done - http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-A-F...iewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

According to this study, the animals fit and other issues are resolvable.

 

[rhutchin]

Can you be specific in stating what you had in mind and tell us why it is a contradiction (e.g., citations demonstrating such)?

Do you understand how your behaviors contradict the teachings of the bible? You're pursuing topics which create controversy, and drive minds away from God, rather than pointing towards various unarguable, fundamental truths about reality,...

So no contradictions specific to the Bible but only to your understanding of how I should behave relative to what you think the Bible says. OK.

 

[rhutchin]

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

OK. List one and the citation to back it up. More than one, with citations, if you want.

I don't have to list citations which state something is impossible. I only need to present one impossibility and leave it to you to explain. You have already failed to explain the olive tree. For another example, how did the koala bears get back to Australia?

Wait, let me guess. They drifted on floating debris which contained eucalyptus trees, right?

You make a claim about the olive tree. I found this explanation on a creationist site, "A global Flood capable of laying down most of the world’s sedimentary rock would have to at least uproot and transport all trees, if not smash them into fragments. In many tree species (including olives) broken pieces buried in soil or mud close to the surface can sprout another tree, the likely source of the olive leaf in Genesis."

Also, "Charles Darwin contributed to the answer to this also. As well as doing experiments on seeds germinating after soaking in water, Darwin pointed out that seeds survive in the dead carcasses of birds and animals floating in the sea. That’s another way that seeds could have survived. Many families of plants have at least some species with seeds that have resistant seed coats (‘hard seeded’) that are impervious to the penetration of water and it is not until they are abraded or pass through fire, for example, that water will penetrate and germination follows. Many legume seeds are like this and will withstand prolonged submersion without losing viability. … Olives are propagated commercially from cuttings, and have been for thousands of years."

So, it appears that the Olive tree could conceivably survive a catastrophic event. So, what did you read that led you to think otherwise?

 

[Bronzeage]

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

OK. List one and the citation to back it up. More than one, with citations, if you want.

I don't have to list citations which state something is impossible. I only need to present one impossibility and leave it to you to explain. You have already failed to explain the olive tree. For another example, how did the koala bears get back to Australia?

Wait, let me guess. They drifted on floating debris which contained eucalyptus trees, right?

You make a claim about the olive tree. I found this explanation on a creationist site, "A global Flood capable of laying down most of the world’s sedimentary rock would have to at least uproot and transport all trees, if not smash them into fragments. In many tree species (including olives) broken pieces buried in soil or mud close to the surface can sprout another tree, the likely source of the olive leaf in Genesis."

Also, "Charles Darwin contributed to the answer to this also. As well as doing experiments on seeds germinating after soaking in water, Darwin pointed out that seeds survive in the dead carcasses of birds and animals floating in the sea. That’s another way that seeds could have survived. Many families of plants have at least some species with seeds that have resistant seed coats (‘hard seeded’) that are impervious to the penetration of water and it is not until they are abraded or pass through fire, for example, that water will penetrate and germination follows. Many legume seeds are like this and will withstand prolonged submersion without losing viability. … Olives are propagated commercially from cuttings, and have been for thousands of years."

So, it appears that the Olive tree could conceivably survive a catastrophic event. So, what did you read that led you to think otherwise?

Your explanation is silly and without merit. Your olive tree scenario is not going to happen, but you are free to try and replicate it.

 

[James Brown]

What's even more curious is the much larger amount of livestock and fodder Noah was required to cram into his barge. Many creationists ignore this when performing their mass calculations and only count a pair of all animals.

"...cram into the ark (barge)..."? Why should we think that there was not ample room for all without cramming anything in?

Because there wasn't enough room.

You can calculate this for yourself. Tell us how many different species of animals Noah took onto the ark. Separate that number into clean and unclean. Calculate the adult mass of each animal. Multiply that mass figure by two for the unclean animals and by seven for the clean animals. Calculate the daily caloric needs for each species of animal, then multiply that figure by 365. Finally, calculate the volume that mass would occupy, and you'll see that there was not room enough on a 450-foot barge to occupy that space, as well as leave room for berths, food storage, exercise areas, waste handling and disposal, etc.

The calculation has been done - http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-A-F...iewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

According to this study, the animals fit and other issues are resolvable.

What's the number?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Define "upgrade".

Starting with your first organism, you would need to upgrade to things like lungs, hearts, bone, blood, etc.

So 'define' isn't a word you're familiar with?

 

[Keith&Co.]

B) and then spout out the deepity "Math isn't physics", which ignores the fact that one finds mathematical structures, and some of them correspond to reality, and comparing mathematical structures to reality IS one of the best ways to test physics and find the mathematical relationships that reality follows

Physics uses math, sure. Or, to be more accurate, our understanding of physics uses math.
But being able to craft a math function does not mean that the math describes reality. No more than logical arguments about Foobs and Dreeps really describes the reality of the Tangleputter Forest.

 

[rousseau]

Absolutely nothing about biology confounds evolution. Every single thing that exists in living organisms can only be understood in the context of evolution. That is the fundamental undercurrent in life science.

- - - Updated - - -

Now I feel better.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mutations are not only degradational.

Any examples?

Resistance to antibiotics comes to mind. The current model, of course, is that some develop positive mutations after the exposure to a particular antibiotic strain. The ones with a slight resistance survive slight exposure, and repeated exposure improves the trait. That would be positive.


If mutations only take away traits, then the only way to explain a population becoming resistant would be for every life form to already have a genetic resistance to every antibiotic that could ever be developed. AND they'd have to have a genetic block in place to prevent that resistance from functioning. So that when they're finally exposed to the antibiotic, some of the population that doesn't die from the exposure has to mutate in the exact way to lose the trait that suppresses the resistance. And also has to not mutate in such a way as to lose that resistance before it's exposed to the strain.

Imagine if some random mutation had deleted an STD's resistance to penicillen in, say, 1500BC. By your claims, it would never, ever redevelop that resistance. There would be a strain that could always be defeated by one antibiotic and no researchers could ever trick it into developing resistance.
Has anyone found such an example?

 

[Keith&Co.]

"In many tree species (including olives) broken pieces buried in soil or mud close to the surface can sprout another tree, the likely source of the olive leaf in Genesis."

Any examples of them floating in sea-water before sprouting another tree?
Any examples of them "sprouting a tree" inside of a month?
Or whatever the interval between the waters receding and Noah sending out the Dove?

Also, "Charles Darwin contributed to the answer to this also. As well as doing experiments on seeds germinating after soaking in water, Darwin pointed out that seeds survive in the dead carcasses of birds and animals floating in the sea.

Darwin observed olive trees doing this?
Darwin observed olive trees sprouting inside of a month?

hat’s another way that seeds could have survived. Many families of plants have at least some species with seeds that have resistant seed coats (‘hard seeded’)

Hard-seeded olives?

So, it appears that the Olive tree could conceivably survive a catastrophic event.

Yes.
Hard-seeded olive trees that sprouted almost as fast as your post-flood animals evolved.

So, what did you read that led you to think otherwise?

A biology textbook would be my first guess.

 

[Jokodo]

Biological processes have very definitely been shown to increase the genome size. A simple duplication of a random part of a random chromosome will do that.

Biological processes have also been shown to diversify genomes. A simple point mutation in a copy of a gene that doesn't affect the original copy will do that.

There you have already got to processes that gets you from one gene to a small family of two genes with a slightly different sequence and possibly slightly different functional effects.

OK, so what is the end result of all this? At the most, speciation. At the least, death. But mostly crowding and a mutation load that is ultimately detrimental to the continuing existence of the organism.

What is your point?

What is "crowding"? And yes, it may well lead to death most of the time. Some of the time, though it will improve an organism's performance.

Funny thing, the mutations that lead to death are not the ones that spread. Pretty commonsensical, that one.

 

[Jokodo]

You basically have to ignore some pretty basic mathematical concepts about multidimensional objects and their generating functions if you want to postulate that the universe's past is what created the present. You have to throw out the possibility

As long as it's a possibility, why shouldn't it be thrown out? Just like the possibility of Last Tuesdayism? What prevents it from being thrown out?

Nope Keith. It's simple. If you ignore some relevant facts about the nature of reality in an attempt to hold onto your belief system, like you're doing right now, you're in the boat with all the other wackadoodles who also ignore relevant facts about the nature of reality to hold onto their belief systems. You can't base your beliefs on opposition to false beliefs, and expect them to be automatically correct. Especially when you start throwing out valid pieces of information in your attempt to hold onto your beliefs.

What "valid pieces of information" is Keith&Co ignoring?

Ignoring might be the wrong term, maybe something more along the lines of "suppressing", although I can't imagine, for the life of me, why someone would claim that:

A) generating functions do not exist
- that generate objects with a past, present, and future

B) and then spout out the deepity "Math isn't physics", which ignores the fact that one finds mathematical structures, and some of them correspond to reality, and comparing mathematical structures to reality IS one of the best ways to test physics and find the mathematical relationships that reality follows

And what does any of this have to do with reality?

Yes, it's possible to contrive a scenario in which the universe was created 6000 years ago complete with a deep time backstory. It's no more compelling than the scenario under which it was created 6 minutes ago with a deep time backstory that includes all of our (fake, under this scenario) memories. Without positive evidence for either of those, the most logical explanation for why the universe looks like its 14 billion years old is that it is, in fact, 14 billion years old, not 6 kiloyears or 6 minutes with a post-hoc backstory.

 

[Underseer]

Mutations are not only degradational.

Any examples?

Resistance to antibiotics comes to mind. The current model, of course, is that some develop positive mutations after the exposure to a particular antibiotic strain. The ones with a slight resistance survive slight exposure, and repeated exposure improves the trait. That would be positive.


If mutations only take away traits, then the only way to explain a population becoming resistant would be for every life form to already have a genetic resistance to every antibiotic that could ever be developed. AND they'd have to have a genetic block in place to prevent that resistance from functioning. So that when they're finally exposed to the antibiotic, some of the population that doesn't die from the exposure has to mutate in the exact way to lose the trait that suppresses the resistance. And also has to not mutate in such a way as to lose that resistance before it's exposed to the strain.

Imagine if some random mutation had deleted an STD's resistance to penicillen in, say, 1500BC. By your claims, it would never, ever redevelop that resistance. There would be a strain that could always be defeated by one antibiotic and no researchers could ever trick it into developing resistance.
Has anyone found such an example?

Don't forget beneficial mutations in humans:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans