16 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'd love to see a chihuahua and a wolf mate, in Kelly's world.
Why do you think single celled organisms are "completely different" from worms and grass? They're all cells. You start with cells, you end with cells, just like when you start with dogs, you end with dogs.
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, my point is that greater complexity doesn't occur where something
So, now that he's responded to this post, does anyone now know whether KellyJay "basically [agrees] that DNA mutation can lead to greater complexity, while also saying it can't become too complex?"
new appears such as systems or organs and so on, there can be changes
within species where you start with dogs have changes, but you still
end with dogs, or where you can start with bacteria, but you still end with
bacteria. Even following the creation story those changes occurred. I’ve
never argued against specialization within species or how breeding
wouldn’t alter anything. If you believe I have been bring up the posts
that support that, because have never argued for that, feel free to go back
as long as I have been here at this site.
Kelly
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by ChurlantThere can be changes within what is here already, but what isn't going
You are complicating my question...
At what point do you place a cutoff on the complexity of DNA mutations?
I mean, do you think DNA mutation can cause... tentacles? Or are those too complex? How about a simple mouth? Skin? Other organs of any kind?
Just so long as we're understanding each other - you are saying that DNA CAN cause complex changes in organisms, but it CAN'T cause ALL of the complexity we see today?
-JC
to occur will be the changes over time adding up to give us something
quite new to the universe. When I speak of something new I refer to
things like hearts, brains, livers, wings, toes, fingers, nervous systems,
and so on, those things will not occur by just the small changes within
DNA unless they are programmed into the system already. So to believe
that life at one time in the universe wasn’t here, and the molecules within
the universe just formed into just the right necessary chemicals, continued
to gather together in just the right amounts, at the right time, in the same
place, connecting in just the right way, in an area that was favorable to
sustain life through thousands upon millions upon billions of years is
quite a leap of faith.
Kelly
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, you start with cells you end with cells, but the difference is that
Why do you think single celled organisms are "completely different" from worms and grass? They're all cells. You start with cells, you end with cells, just like when you start with dogs, you end with dogs.
with those examples where we go from a single cell life form to those
with a blade of grass or worm is that those cells have not only had to
change into completely different types of cells specialized to do certain
tasks so they can work together in systems that is something much more
than just the altering of a single cell from one to another type to another.
Kelly
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayNo-one is suggesting that single cell organisms have ever or would ever evolve into complex multicellular organisms like grasses or worms so why are you suggesting that it is part of evolution and then knocking down the argument?
Yes, you start with cells you end with cells, but the difference is that
with those examples where we go from a single cell life form to those
with a blade of grass or worm is that those cells have not only had to
change into completely different types of cells specialized to do certain
tasks so they can work together in systems that is something much more
than just the altering of a single cell from one to another type to another.
Kelly
It makes no sense at all
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeActually, I do believe this was what occurred. Single celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms, including grass and worms.
No-one is suggesting that single cell organisms have ever or would ever evolve into complex multicellular organisms like grasses or worms so why are you suggesting that it is part of evolution and then knocking down the argument?
It makes no sense at all
17 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_personal_incredulity
Yes, you start with cells you end with cells, but the difference is that
with those examples where we go from a single cell life form to those
with a blade of grass or worm is that those cells have not only had to
change into completely different types of cells specialized to do certain
tasks so they can work together in systems that is something much more
than just the altering of a single cell from one to another type to another.
Kelly
You're being illogical.
17 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayALL cells contain the same DNA. All you are altering is the expression of certain genes, normally during development. Real good evidence exists for how these things are regulated, which is typically through interactions between cells and physical processes, such as the diffusion of hormones through a tissue. It's not hard stuff.
completely different types of cells
You try to forget that all these cells start the same way, a brain cell and a big toe cell have far more similarities than you seem to want to believe.
18 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry, I didn't make myself clear. Single celled organisms didn't evolve into complex multicellular organisms, including grass and worms, in one step.
Actually, I do believe this was what occurred. Single celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms, including grass and worms.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzTrue, but then you don't see many toes growing where people’s noses
ALL cells contain the same DNA. All you are altering is the expression of certain genes, normally during development. Real good evidence exists for how these things are regulated, which is typically through interactions between cells and physical processes, such as the diffusion of hormones through a tissue. It's not hard stuff.
You try to forget ...[text shortened]... y, a brain cell and a big toe cell have far more similarities than you seem to want to believe.
are do you? It is amazing that the code does what it does, and your
claims that over time life sprang from non-living material, then
very slowing became what it is today is simply so far fetched to me
I amazed anyone with half a brain could buy into it.
Kelly
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayGood thing I have an entire brain. That allows me to see the truth from the creationist propaganda. I cannot believe that anyone believes that a big man in the sky goes around creating planets.
True, but then you don't see many toes growing where people’s noses
are do you? It is amazing that the code does what it does, and your
claims that over time life sprang from non-living material, then
very slowing became what it is today is simply so far fetched to me
I amazed anyone with half a brain could buy into it.
Kelly
You do occassionally see mutants with things growing where they shouldn't, but they are thankfully rare. Most are (naturally) aborted before they are born.
It also seems completely odd to me, that you cannot see that it is possible to have variations, some of which are better than others, and that gradually that can lead to large changes - much in the same way as has happened in computing.
21 Jun 06
As usually kellyjay falls back on his only argument which is basically that he is not intelligent enough to understand evolution.
Anyway I think he has more or less admitted that it is possible for 'funtional complexity', whatever that is, to increase without direct influence from an external intelligent being. He is merely denying that it can increase 'significantly' but gives no reasoning for that other than "I refuse to believe" and no indication as to exaclty how 'significant' the imposible changes are.