tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post282394447465997819..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Does an understanding of evolution help scientists understand the secrets of biology?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48270268813097354662014-02-14T11:34:04.428-05:002014-02-14T11:34:04.428-05:00Thanks, Piotr. That is sufficient.
I also tried t...Thanks, Piotr. That is sufficient.<br /><br />I also tried to find it with no success.Arek Wittbrodthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111672656316139254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20239931610478093052014-02-13T16:15:02.202-05:002014-02-13T16:15:02.202-05:00I know of it from secondary sources such as these:...I know of it from secondary sources such as these:<br />http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,126568,10569070,Prokuratura_uwierzyla_w_jasnowidza___.html<br />http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114871,14000927,Prokuratura_powoluje_jasnowidza_Jackowskiego_jako.html<br />https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krzysztof_Jackowski_(jasnowidz)<br /><br />I have tried to find the report itself, but with no success so far.<br /><br />Correction: of the 8 "partly correct" predictions 3 were obvious and the remaining 5 less so. Not too impressive anyway.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31101192871494709942014-02-13T11:11:34.687-05:002014-02-13T11:11:34.687-05:00@Piotr Gąsiorowski
"In 2000, the Polish poli...@Piotr Gąsiorowski<br /><br /><i>"In 2000, the Polish police carried out a study of the effectiveness of "psychic detectives". ..."</i><br /><br />Is this study available online?Arek Wittbrodthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111672656316139254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83054990299817779802014-02-13T09:42:16.792-05:002014-02-13T09:42:16.792-05:00In 2000, the Polish police carried out a study of ...In 2000, the Polish police carried out a study of the effectiveness of "psychic detectives". Their services are occasionally enlisted, usually at the request of the family of a missing person or a murder victim -- in other words, to give an illusion of hope to people in despair (for which, however, they pay with real money). In the period 1994-1999 there were 440 cases on which psychics were consulted. 432 of their predictions turned out to be mostly or completely wrong, 8 were partly correct (but in 5 cases the solution was obvious, like what may have happened to a mountain climber gone missing for a week in the middle of the winter season). Not a single one was completely correct. The number of cases in which missing people have been found thanks to "psychic evidence" is zero. Which od course does not prevent psychics from boasting about their detective skills, or tabloid journalists from selling this bullshit to their readers; or numerous websites from echoing it.<br /><br />It's the same worldwide, I suppose. The case of the clairvoyant who "located" one of the victims of the Long Island serial killer is typical as well as instructive:<br /><br />http://news.discovery.com/human/psychic-tip-on-long-island-serial-killer.htmPiotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61836783257700940302014-02-13T08:47:54.683-05:002014-02-13T08:47:54.683-05:00...or wouldn't see the harm in calling in both...<i> ...or wouldn't see the harm in calling in both.</i><br /><br />All helped along in part by the plethora of bullshit on tv these days. I'm thinking of the channels I once naively thought were committed to educational documentaries: The History Channel, The (from its inception ill-named) Learning Channel and, for shame, The National Geographic Channel.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85778786378018472992014-02-13T07:47:34.593-05:002014-02-13T07:47:34.593-05:00"And if forensic scientists tell one story ab..."And if forensic scientists tell one story about what happened at the scene of crime (based on the evidence they have gathered), and an itinerant clairvoyant tells another story (based on what spirits revealed to her in a psychic daydream) -- who deserves more confidence?"<br /><br />This analogy is perfect. I think I will steal it for extensive future use. <br /><br />The only problem being I'm sure there's a depressingly large section of the population who wouldn't see much practical difference between calling in a CSI forensic team and calling in a psychic, or wouldn't see the harm in calling in both. Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59390436054076207052014-02-13T07:36:04.340-05:002014-02-13T07:36:04.340-05:00The least we ought to hear is a straight apology f...The least we ought to hear is a straight apology for the quote mining.Rkthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14537319324895152785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28339437870549296352014-02-13T07:27:18.597-05:002014-02-13T07:27:18.597-05:00I doubt he'll be coming back, probably dicover...I doubt he'll be coming back, probably dicovered suddenly that he has got rather a lot to be getting on with in the garden.Rkthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14537319324895152785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53905302603190518232014-02-13T07:06:35.932-05:002014-02-13T07:06:35.932-05:00And if forensic scientists tell one story about wh...And if forensic scientists tell one story about what happened at the scene of crime (based on the evidence they have gathered), and an itinerant clairvoyant tells another story (based on what spirits revealed to her in a psychic daydream) -- who deserves more confidence?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51651074389972827032014-02-13T05:56:52.714-05:002014-02-13T05:56:52.714-05:00Has any scientist observed the appearance of the f...<i>Has any scientist observed the appearance of the first self-reproducing cell, observed the flight of the first bird or the march of the first reptile on land? Has any of this been documented?</i><br /><br />Since no human could have possibly observed these events, we will just have to make up a story about some invisible god poofing these things into existence. Sounds reasonable.<br /><br />And in other news, it has recently been decreed that no person can be convicted of murder based on evidence at the crime scene, unless a police officer directly witnessed the murder (and perhaps took a video of the murder for good measure).<br /><br />The accused defense: "Were you there?"SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-314564201859756362014-02-12T23:14:58.435-05:002014-02-12T23:14:58.435-05:00jsprsns, I have a few questions for you:
If whal...jsprsns, I have a few questions for you: <br /><br />If whales didn't evolve from previous animals, where did they come from? <br /><br />Is a person or animal with two heads more complex than a person or animal with one head? <br /><br />Will you explain the occurrence of intersex humans and animals from your apparently religious point of view? <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70775017686061151422014-02-11T14:43:20.325-05:002014-02-11T14:43:20.325-05:00I thought you might bring that up. For a sufficien...I thought you might bring that up. For a sufficiently indirect meaning of "direct", yes, we have directly observed an atom or two. But is it your claim that we didn't know atoms existed before that point?<br /><br />The point is that all these tiny things are inferred from what we can observe, not (with a very few exceptions) observed themselves. And this is exactly how evolutionary biology works too. Nothing at all different. Consider, for example, the detailed similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes, and further among the genomes of all primates. And if we try to build a tree of relationships using various pieces of genetic data, we always get the same result: humans and chimps closest, then gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons, then old world monkeys, then new world monkeys, etc. This result can be explained only by a common descent of all those species, with a particular branching pattern. Hey, we actually do that work in a lab, with white coats and everything. Just like you think science has to be. So in what way is that observation of history different from your observation of orbitals? More important, how does it differ from your knowledge that, say, p orbitals existed before the techniques of visualizing them were developed?<br /><br />Sorry about the abuse, but your arrogance does invite it. Try to have some respect yourself, and perhaps you will earn more from others.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72137341854616790092014-02-11T14:21:59.447-05:002014-02-11T14:21:59.447-05:00You have a point Piotr. I was hoping to discover w...You have a point Piotr. I was hoping to discover whether he/she has any knowledge at all - if all you do is parrot stuff you've been fed by others then you create the impression that you really haven't that much. Worse still if (as you have demonstrated) they dishonestly assign views to someone who cannot answer back themselves, but I'm glad to see you are so vigilant on Wald's behalf. Jsprsns will probably ignore and switch. He also is stuck with the idea (probably watched too many adaptations of the Frankenstein story?) that a glob of unliving matter received a 'jolt' around 3 billion years ago causing it to be alive where 10 seconds earlier the glob was completely lifeless. To convince him it wasn't like that, and that the properties we now associate with 'life' arose in very many steps (over millions of years) would be difficult (to say the very least). I wonder if he thinks viruses are non-living or living? From what Jsprsns has come up with so far, it could be more profitable to explore with him the idea of common descent. Jsprsns, can we ever (in your view) make any statements at all about common descent by comparing organisms? Can we do it for just prokaryotes or is it possible acoss all of life? If we can't do it even for bacteria why do Scientists bother to study changes pertaining to antibiotic resistance? If it's not valid to compare multicellular oganisms - then what is the critical difference that makes this the case? Let's expore this further.<br />Rkthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14537319324895152785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17184607099437951632014-02-11T11:45:17.849-05:002014-02-11T11:45:17.849-05:00Well let’s not be silly - direct observation of th...Well let’s not be silly - direct observation of the orbital structure of an excited hydrogen atom has been seen using a quantum microscope (also the mapping of surfaces can be done at the atomic level using atomic force microscopy and scanning tunneling microscopy).<br />Apart from that fact – we know there are small particles (atoms if you like) through the, yes, atomic theory and the results that have been obtained from predictive experiments (the scientific method). One can actually measure the effects.<br />For you to equate atomic theory to the theory of evolution in the same breath would not please many chemists/physicists, I suspect! Evolution is NOT a theory – it’s speculation.<br />There are also plenty of experimental techniques that can be used to demonstrate the atomic nature of matter. <br />You have absolutely no technique to demonstrate or prove that evolution occurs in its broadest sense – so get real, give up this pseudo-science. <br />And it doesn't do your cause any good to have abusive, foul mouthed cannon fodder following your footsteps. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15726802374746288382014-02-11T09:34:15.901-05:002014-02-11T09:34:15.901-05:00Yes, you do indeed come across as smug and arrogan...Yes, you do indeed come across as smug and arrogant. If that isn't by choice, perhaps you should examine your writings a bit more closely. You have just accused evolutionary biologists of being biased and stupid, and you have indeed claimed you know more about the science than we do, since you feel able to assess the state of our field. How could that possibly not sound arrogant?<br /><br />I see you have adopted Ken Ham's false and naive distinction between observational and historical science. Completely wrong. Very little that we know is due to what you call "direct observation". Take atomic theory for example (which of course is "just a theory"). How do we know atoms and smaller particles exist? We can't see them; we can only observe their effects. It's the same with evolution. Reject evolution, reject atoms. Your choice.<br /><br />I doubt you have ever read anyone's introduction to the Origin of Species. Once again you are taking quotes from creationist web sites. But if L. Harrison Matthews, whoever he was, actually said any such thing, he was egregiously wrong. Now, if you would like to discuss some of the evidence, I would be happy to. But you have to lose that pride in your own ignorance.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57085640009375012212014-02-11T09:01:00.031-05:002014-02-11T09:01:00.031-05:00The alleged George Wald quote is a fabrication by ...The alleged George Wald quote is a fabrication by some lying creationist arsehole.<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57<br /><br />I wouldn't feed this quote-mining troll.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49431777862494925852014-02-11T08:49:41.008-05:002014-02-11T08:49:41.008-05:00@jsprsns,
Have you ever considered that George Wal...@jsprsns,<br />Have you ever considered that George Wald (writing six decades ago) might have been wrong? Remind me: what was his area of expertise, principally?<br />I also would be interested in hearing your definitin of 'spontaneous' please. Is the migration of a monarch butterfly from Mexico to Canada a spontaneous occurrence? Does a child living in, say, Liverpool simply wake up one morning talking spontaneously in a 'scouse' accent?<br /> Rkthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14537319324895152785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61929508795446976202014-02-11T07:48:42.328-05:002014-02-11T07:48:42.328-05:00George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize,...George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize, in “Science” ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954) stated,<br /> “When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved (by Louis Pasteur) 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance”. <br />This quotation indicates the reason why opinions are sometimes used as facts. The only alternative, special creation, is totally unacceptable to many people. Evolution is upheld because creation is an unacceptable (unbelievable) alternative. This dogma is promoted ardently by atheists. What is their ultimate goal? To remove God from ANY possible thought derived from public and private education. It has been a long, purposeful, and deliberate attack on Christianity.<br /><br />Evolution has become a scientific religion. <br /><br />The “science” of evolution is devoted to proving Darwin was right. It is not in any way an objective science looking for answers. Information and testing is bent to prove the theory. <br /><br />As a (retired) research and development chemist I know the beauty of science, when it is describing and rationalising how nature works - when objects and events in nature can be isolated, studied in the laboratory by experiments that are repeatable. However, historical science is a completely different matter and becomes much more subjective. The models developed depend critically on the assumptions that go into them and these are often highly influenced by ideology. Science has no automatic right to be dogmatic in these situations. This means that academic freedom is necessary if science is to progress. However, scientists frequently are not characterized by this objectivity. Biologists often emphatically state that there is no evidence for design; evolution is as well established as gravity! So, if evolutionists insist upon closing their minds to all alternative theories, they will have no way to determine whether theirs is truly the best. As Darwin realized, scientists must “fully stat[e] and balanc[e] all the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” <br /><br />The strength of the scientific method is found not so much in its ability to detect truth, but in its ability to detect error. <br /><br />Free open discussion of theories is necessary in the search for scientific truth, and we cannot have openness of theories without academic freedom but there is none. It’s evolution or evolution. Knowing or believing our origins, the meaning of life, these are of fundamental importance and can shape our lives. To know why we are here, we must know where we came from. Quite apart from any religious teaching, individuals should be given full and balanced information, honestly, without prejudice, otherwise how can they make an informed choice. [I refer you to Romans 10:14 NLT].<br /><br /> If science is about questioning things, about teaching people to say 'I don't believe it until we have very strong evidence", why do most proponents seek to defend current evolutionary theory theory by refusing to consider alternatives?<br /><br />Your career is no doubt wrapped up in evolution – you have a vested interest in this. Why would you not defend it to the hilt? It’s unfortunate that your valuable time is not spent on far more worthwhile ventures. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55447392493802517762014-02-11T07:47:41.312-05:002014-02-11T07:47:41.312-05:00John – I wasn’t trying to be smug and if it appear...John – I wasn’t trying to be smug and if it appeared that way then I apologise. Also, I accept that you know considerably more about evolutionary biology than I do – but then those who have made a point of studying Greek mythology have a similar advantage – but that doesn’t mean that it real, does it? Also, has it not crossed your mind that individuals who look at matters in a much more broader way can get a better perspective. You’re perhaps too close to the trees!<br />However, my final, final point - I will give you an extract of a letter I compiled recently – I think it describes yours, and other like minded individuals, position exactly.<br />Most evolutionists’ evidence supporting their position is unfounded, since none of it is based on direct observation and much of the indirect evidence is disputable. Indeed, evolution as a hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact. The tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories is because they have this prior commitment: a commitment to naturalism/materialism. The subversive teaching of this philosophy to our children is a tragedy since I have seen not one advantage or benefit documented for a society that is built around materialism and a non-belief in a divine Creator.<br />We are all aware that Darwin’s evolutionary principles pervade every aspect of society, not least the scientific community where it has taken on an almost sacred status. It has, indeed, become an ideology. Anyone who dares question it is labelled “stupid, ignorant or insane!” The “theory” is even stated as “fact” even though there is hardly a shred of convincing experimental evidence that supports it, contrary to the incessant submissions of evolutionists.<br />Everyone agrees that natural selection can turn long finch beaks into short ones; not everyone agrees that it can turn fish into frogs (the fossil record, for example, shows only when frogs appeared, not where they came from). <br />Has any scientist observed the appearance of the first self-reproducing cell, observed the flight of the first bird or the march of the first reptile on land? Has any of this been documented? Scientists have a lot of speculations to offer on these subjects, but real science demands observation, (this is how we get antibiotics, more efficient engines and satellites into space). <br /><br />Since none of hypothesised evolutionary phenomena have been observed, there is no objective way to determine if these speculations on the origin and development of life have any relation at all to the real world. So what is evolution? – an ideology. It is therefore not scientific, but a matter of faith, and this despite the fact that it is formulated with "scientific" vocabulary and that many scientists believe it. Few would argue with the notion that ‘things change’, but to take the step from ‘things change’ to ‘and therefore, that’s how it all got here’ is a leap of blind, irrational faith.<br /><br />All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of "Origin of the Species", Matthews says, ". . .Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." That situation hasn’t changed.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91798133496434104432014-02-10T21:06:23.717-05:002014-02-10T21:06:23.717-05:00Easy. He needed a few more occasions of sin as wel...Easy. He needed a few more occasions of sin as well as something extra to smite people for.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90380890884439428782014-02-10T21:05:12.549-05:002014-02-10T21:05:12.549-05:00My goal wasn't to convince you of anything. I ...My goal wasn't to convince you of anything. I know you can't be. It was to make you slightly less smug and arrogant in your ignorance. DId I succeed? Your comment on junk DNA suggests I didn't. Please stop telling evolutionary biologists that you know more about evolution than they do and you might get a little more respect.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79111985692035048452014-02-10T18:20:41.936-05:002014-02-10T18:20:41.936-05:0011. You understand that Ridley was talking about t...<i>11. You understand that Ridley was talking about the origin of sex in single-celled eukaryotes, right? Because that's where it started. Nothing to do with animals; they came later. And originally it involved neither separate sexes nor reproduction. Also, it isn't the origin that's the puzzle; it's the reasons why it's advantageous.</i><br /><br />By the way, if God did it, what did <i>he</i> need sexual reproduction for? I can't recall ever seeing any <i>creationist</i> (or IDological) explanation of sex. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15908890777204095712014-02-10T18:12:39.873-05:002014-02-10T18:12:39.873-05:00Thanks John for your comprehensive replies! You h...Thanks John for your comprehensive replies! You have tried to convince me but without success. I realise that your belief is as strong as mine so it wouldn't benefit either of us to continue with this debate, as much as I'd like to. You see, when you say things like 90% of the genome (correct spelling!) is junk - you cannot be serious! Your apparent knowledge of evolution takes a little knock there. Cheers and good luck! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16679510179318368622014-02-10T17:49:55.510-05:002014-02-10T17:49:55.510-05:00And more...
Whoops. My points C-E somehow got sni...And more...<br /><br />Whoops. My points C-E somehow got snipped. Here they are:<br /><br />C. The idea that natural selection operate to the benefit of the species. Nope. It acts on the reproductive success of individuals. Sickle trait is advantageous where there is malaria, even though homozygotes are lethal.<br /><br />D. The idea that evolution is progressive, moving toward some special goal, usually humans. Nope. Much evolution is entirely random. Even adaptive evolution moves only toward immediate, local optima.<br /><br />E. The idea that everything is either intelligently guided or chaotic. Nope. There are many completely unguided, natural processes that produce complex order. Snowflakes are a fine example of the result of such a process. Natural selection is one such process. The existence of order and/or complexity does not imply intelligence.<br />OK. Now to the numbered points.<br /><br />8 & 9. Your expectations are simply wrong. See B and E above. The simple, straight-line intermediates you expect never existed, and the actual intermediates, which resemble neither end point, are generally extinct, and many of them can be found i the fossil record.<br /><br />10. Ah, so now it's the human eye specifically. You understand that most vertebrates have similar eyes, right? Again, there's a nice series of intermediate conditions found in living organisms. Darwin pointed this out in the Origin. Or if you want something more recent, try Nilsson, D., and S. Pelger. 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 256:53-58.<br /><br />11. You understand that Ridley was talking about the origin of sex in single-celled eukaryotes, right? Because that's where it started. Nothing to do with animals; they came later. And originally it involved neither separate sexes nor reproduction. Also, it isn't the origin that's the puzzle; it's the reasons why it's advantageous.<br /><br />12. Again, you don't understand that we have a good fossil record for vertebrates and can see knee joints as they evolved all the way back to fish that don't exactly have knees at all. Where they appeared first depends on which primitive joint you want to call the first knee.<br /><br />13. How would you know whether it's speculation? You clearly no only as much about biology as is needed to parrot creationist web sites. I am fairly confident that you have never read anything about real biology. Also note the different between knowing that something happened and knowing why it happened. We have much more knowledge about the former than about the latter.<br /><br />14. My point about the dogs and chickens is that you are a biased observer. You only see dogs and chickens as radically different because you are more closely related to them than to spiders and notice their differences more easily. Spiders differ among themselves just about as much as dogs and chickens do, if only you would look more closely.<br /><br />15. I didn't say I had no idea. In fact I said there were several ideas with suggestive evidence for them. Do you have any evidence for your idea, whatever it is? I bet you don't.<br /><br /><br />John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82754879220970894112014-02-10T17:48:20.616-05:002014-02-10T17:48:20.616-05:00Before responding point by point, let me bring up ...Before responding point by point, let me bring up a few of the basic misunderstandings of evolution on which your claims are based.<br /><br />A. The idea that evolution works by saltation, i.e. a dog giving birth to a cat or a plant magically transforming into an animal. Nope. Evolution is a slow and gradual process in human terms. (And please don't bring up punk eek here; that too is slow and gradual in human terms, just rapid in geological terms.) Evolution hasn't stopped. It's just slow.<br /><br />B. The idea that we should see smooth intermediates between modern groups, either in the present or in the fossil record. Nope. The common ancestors of two groups commonly look nothing like either of the groups or any imagined intermediate. The common ancestor of plants and animals, for example, was a single-celled, non-green protist, nothing like either a plant or an animal.<br /><br />1. Nobody has ever tried to produce life, as far as I know. Anyway, if we did, wouldn't that just tell you that an intelligent designer was involved? If you want it done naturally, duplicating the natural process, even if we knew the conditions, would take much longer than any human time scale.<br /><br />2. I'm not dodging. You have introduced a term whose meaning you have no idea of, and now you have tried to define it by introducing still more terms you also have no idea of. Every insertion mutation, quite a common thing, adds information to the genome. By the way, around 90% of your 3 billion base pairs are useless junk.<br /><br />3. Your question had nothing to do with the first single cell. Read it again. As for the origin of multicellularity in animals (one of 5 independent such events), sponges make a good halfway point, don't you think?<br /><br />4. Morphing, as you call it, is a fairly slow process. Do you have an analog watch? Can you see the hour hand move? Does that tell you it isn't moving? Looking at the past lets us see a much longer period of time.<br /><br />5. "Upwards and onwards" is another term you don't know the meaning of and can't define. See C and D above.<br /><br />6. Mined quotes from some creationist web site do not make an argument. I doubt you have ever seen the original article or have any understanding of what it means. If you gave me a real citation I could try to find it and explain it to you. As for transitional forms, I actually mentioned a couple in the reply I gave you. <i>Archaeopteryx</i>, for example, has a very nice partially formed wing, essentially a typical theropod arm with feathers on it, lacking all the fancy anatomical specializations of modern birds. <br /><br />7. You have claimed that something is impossible. What is your basis for that claim? See also A above.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.com