Atheistoclast wrote:[..]I don't think anything in the physical anatomy of any organism is encoded in the genome. Gene regulatory networks allow the appropriate proteins to be produced at the right place and time but they don't specify how organs are actually formed...

If genes regulate protein expression at appropriate places and times then how are they not specifying how organs are formed?

Atheistoclast wrote:... Evolutionists believe the hindlimbs of cetaceans were heavily reduced through degenerative mutations. OK. That is a reasonable point. Mutations can cause developmental arrest of parts. But the problem is in explaining the origin of the complex marine adaptations that also require need to be coordinated with each other to a large degree.

Firstly; What is an Evolutionist?

Secondly; I think the problem with explaining the origin of complex marine adaptations that appear to be coordinated with each other is that you do not accept the explanations. The problem then is only in explaining evolution to your satisfaction.

Science is only about finding things out. It is an approach to certain types of enquiry, a methodological approach to knowledge one might say. The Theory of Evolution is a just product of that approach to enquiry, and it embodies the most reasonable explanations we have for the diversity of the biosphere given what has been observed.

You do not appear to dispute what evolutionary scientists and others have observed but take issue with the conclusions formed on those observations, with an emphasis on an apparent failures of TOE to explain certain gaps and contradictions. As raised earlier, if TOE does not appear to adequately explain observations then what does, or might explain them?

Perhaps you will address this question by pointing again to some failure of TOE to explain some fact or observation, but even in allowing for the possibility that TOE is completely wrong I would still like to know what alternative explanation fits the observations?

My suspicion is that you mistakenly feel that calling attention to some inadequacies in one theory automatically makes another at least as likely, if not more so. This would not be the case of course, the failure of one argument does not automatically demonstrate the validity of any other, and this is why one needs to demonstrate an argument on its own terms; hence my question above.

Atheistoclast wrote:I am very impatient. However, I see some sequence data on the bottlenose dolphin is already available:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/trac ... uncatus%27

It is just not annotated.

Yes. That's one dolphin species, not "The Dolphin".

Spearthrower wrote:Everyone see Atheistoclast's Morton Demon hard at work here?

Spearthrower wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Here is a look at the anatomy of the dolphin, a cetacean marine mammal whose closest terrestrial relatives are artiodactyls such as giraffes, cows, pigs and camels.



If evolution is the result of the natural selection of random mutations in DNA, can someone please tell me how such an anatomy entirely suited to a marine environment and replete with blowholes, flukes, dorsal fins, flippers etc could have evolved through molecular tinkering in the DNA? I do realize that the dolphin genome is not yet available. But still.

Don't just say Evolutiondidit.

What's that part labelled 'pelvis', Atheistoclast?

No response, unsurprisingly!

And no answer to that either :

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:If evolution is true, then if some humans decide to take to the oceans as the ancestors of cetaceans did, then they will acquire marine adaptations through changes in their DNA. I propose we conduct an experiment and see if a race of mermen evolve.

But evolution is false, so we might not even bother.

How long do you think such an experiment would need to run, atheistoclast?

This was the exact question I was going to ask. I'm interested in what his response is, so I hope he does reply.

aban57 wrote:
This was the exact question I was going to ask. I'm interested in what his response is, so I hope he does reply.

I don't understand. Fish have pelvis girdles. The Dolphin is just a fishy mammal.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:I am very impatient. However, I see some sequence data on the bottlenose dolphin is already available:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/trac ... uncatus%27

It is just not annotated.

Yes. That's one dolphin species, not "The Dolphin".

Can you suggest how I can find anything useful in this archive? I want to do some comparative analysis of genes.

Atheistoclast wrote:

aban57 wrote:
This was the exact question I was going to ask. I'm interested in what his response is, so I hope he does reply.

I don't understand. Fish have pelvis girdles. The Dolphin is just a fishy mammal.

Even Jesus facepalmed.

(or he would've if his hand wasn't nailed)

Atheistoclast wrote:

aban57 wrote:
This was the exact question I was going to ask. I'm interested in what his response is, so I hope he does reply.

I don't understand. Fish have pelvis girdles. The Dolphin is just a fishy mammal.

Atheistoclast's at the forefront of baraminology.






That pelvic girdle just ain't quite the same as a pelvis, is it Atheistoclast? I know it's all so confusing that it uses a similar word and stuff...

THWOTH wrote:
If genes regulate protein expression at appropriate places and times then how are they not specifying how organs are formed?

Genes are expressed. Proteins are produced.

No. Just having the right chemical materials in the right place and in the right amount doesn't mean the cells will organize themselves into a particular structure.

Firstly; What is an Evolutionist?

This guy:

Spearthrower wrote:
That pelvic girdle just ain't quite the same as a pelvis, is it Atheistoclast? I know it's all so confusing that it uses a similar word and stuff...

You can't even take a joke. I believe the cetacean "pelvis" is used to enable sex.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
That pelvic girdle just ain't quite the same as a pelvis, is it Atheistoclast? I know it's all so confusing that it uses a similar word and stuff...

You can't even take a joke. I believe the cetacean "pelvis" is used to enable sex.

And yours isn't?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
That pelvic girdle just ain't quite the same as a pelvis, is it Atheistoclast? I know it's all so confusing that it uses a similar word and stuff...

You can't even take a joke. I believe the cetacean "pelvis" is used to enable sex.

It's a joke used to sidestep the necessary inferences.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Firstly; What is an Evolutionist?

This guy:

That's a deceased Naturalist.

Atheistoclast wrote:

THWOTH wrote:
If genes regulate protein expression at appropriate places and times then how are they not specifying how organs are formed?

Genes are expressed. Proteins are produced.

Relying on equivocation to dodge the question is an intellectually dishonest tactic imo.

Atheistoclast wrote:No. Just having the right chemical materials in the right place and in the right amount doesn't mean the cells will organize themselves into a particular structure.

You have simply rephrased your original assertion. If genes do not regulate this process then what other factors are at play such that the right chemical materials are in the right places in the right amount?

Atheistoclast wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Firstly; What is an Evolutionist?

This guy:

This guy might very well be an Evolutionist but you have made no effort to explain what one is. What is an Evolutionist exactly?

You also seem to have wilfully neglected my second, substantial and qualified point - why was this?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
That pelvic girdle just ain't quite the same as a pelvis, is it Atheistoclast? I know it's all so confusing that it uses a similar word and stuff...

You can't even take a joke. I believe the cetacean "pelvis" is used to enable sex.

Wut?

Seriously, at the risk of being percieved as a creeper, I watch cetaceans have sex routinely. There is no thrusting involved. I know their reproductive anatomy intimately. What role does the rudimentary pelvis play in sex for them?

A pelvic girdle isn't a pelvis. The bones that anchor hind limbs to the spine fuse, forming a pelvis, for weight-bearing, not breeding. Animals with pelvises either bare weight on their hind limbs or did historically.

Atheistoclast wrote:Here is a look at the anatomy of the dolphin, a cetacean marine mammal whose closest terrestrial relatives are artiodactyls such as giraffes, cows, pigs and camels.



If evolution is the result of the natural selection of random mutations in DNA, can someone please tell me how such an anatomy entirely suited to a marine environment and replete with blowholes, flukes, dorsal fins, flippers etc could have evolved through molecular tinkering in the DNA? I do realize that the dolphin genome is not yet available. But still.

Don't just say Evolutiondidit.

Thats a funny last line. Never saw it before.
I am a YEC and agree selection on mutation plus time is impossible and unreasonable even for the origin of this creature.
YEt i strongly agree and welcome its just a adapted creature to a post flood world. It was on the ark as a land creature and by innate mechanisms instantly adapted to the seas. nO intermediates but there would be variety's.
Biological change is real and so mechanisms are there.
Even if we have not been smart enough to figure them out.

Oh deary me!

This is a joke, right?

Robert Byers wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Here is a look at the anatomy of the dolphin, a cetacean marine mammal whose closest terrestrial relatives are artiodactyls such as giraffes, cows, pigs and camels.



If evolution is the result of the natural selection of random mutations in DNA, can someone please tell me how such an anatomy entirely suited to a marine environment and replete with blowholes, flukes, dorsal fins, flippers etc could have evolved through molecular tinkering in the DNA? I do realize that the dolphin genome is not yet available. But still.

Don't just say Evolutiondidit.

Thats a funny last line. Never saw it before.
I am a YEC and agree selection on mutation plus time is impossible and unreasonable even for the origin of this creature.
YEt i strongly agree and welcome its just a adapted creature to a post flood world. It was on the ark as a land creature and by innate mechanisms instantly adapted to the seas. nO intermediates but there would be variety's.
Biological change is real and so mechanisms are there.
Even if we have not been smart enough to figure them out.

I call POE on this. You cannot possibly believe it, you mischievous joker you! I can see you arepulling our legs for effect and so by the Laws of Poe I bid you to own up to the deception.

Animavore wrote:Oh deary me!

This is a joke, right?

It's funnier if you read byer's posts in the voice of Ignignokt the Mooninite from Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

Pure comedy gold.