tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2538648101077174442.post7499685934650495258..comments2024-03-29T03:33:11.509-04:00Comments on Shattered Paradigm: Teaching EvolutionShattered Paradigmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15108535580841006211noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2538648101077174442.post-27349569768073759622009-03-28T12:25:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:25:00.000-04:001) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, th...1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?<BR/><BR/>They all evolved at once. Ever heard of a tubular digestive tract? Mouth, stomach, and anus are all one. See, Phylum Rotifera.<BR/><BR/>2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?<BR/><BR/>The ability to use oxygen. It was originally absorbed through the skin, this process still exists in many amphibians such as frogs. <BR/><BR/>3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?<BR/><BR/>The blood. Many primitive creatures have hydraulic based muscular systems that work by flooding different chambers with blood in order to produce movement. See Phylum Mollusca.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2538648101077174442.post-84440286304282964652009-03-27T17:16:00.000-04:002009-03-27T17:16:00.000-04:00I've got a few things to say:A) What actual eviden...I've got a few things to say:<BR/><BR/>A) What actual evidence is there for creationism? Even if there were some sort of consensus that evolution was incorrect, evidence would have to be found supporting creationism. It's not like creationism is somehow the default explanation.<BR/>Also, if creationism is actually a science, it has to be falsifiable. In other words, there has to be some sort of discovery that, if true, could potentially disprove the idea. (Ex.: Evolution could be falsified if a fossil were discovered that was siginificantly out of place chronologically, such as a precambrian rabbit.) How is creationism falsifiable?<BR/><BR/>B) Transitional fossils: There are lots of transitional fossils (and technically every species is transitional since evolution still goes on today). Here's an abbreviated list: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html. (Just because you're not impressed by Archaeopteryx doesn't invalidate all the other transitional fossils.) A video list that's more thorough can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F9729F67CD4034C9. For more examples, just google the phrase "transitional fossils."<BR/><BR/>C) I think most of your issues with evolution are addressed pretty thoroughly on youtube by a user named DonExodus2. His explanations are more in depth than what I'm saying right now, so I'd recommend watching a bunch of his videos. <BR/><BR/>D) You said to ask this to evolutionists: "Do you have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?"<BR/><BR/>Here's the evolutionist answer:<BR/>i. The theory of how life was first formed is abiogenesis. Evolution deals with the change in living organisms starting from when organisms were already in existence. Please note the difference between the two theories. Evolution makes no claim about the creation of the first life forms on Earth.<BR/><BR/>ii. According to the theory of abiogenesis, life didn't just pop up. Rather carbon-based molecules were subjected to environmental conditions suitable for the formation of organic compounds, such as amino acids, lipids, and RNA nucleotides (see Urey-Miller Experiment among others). RNA could have replicated itself based on its molecular properties and that RNA can act as a catalyst for chemical reactions. (I presume you know about ribozymes, right?) This could lead to replicating organice matter.<BR/><BR/>iii. Doesn't creationism state that life just popped up in 6 days? If you can't have enough faith to believe that self-replicating molecules gradually led to the development of protobionts and later cells over time, then how can you accept that organisms quickly arose from the dust of the Earth?<BR/><BR/>iv. If you can't believe that simple cells formed on their own, how can you believe an infinitely complex deity formed on his own?<BR/><BR/>v. Science is agnostic. It deals with phenomena in the natural world. Creationism would be a supernatural phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>E) Now I'd like to address the 3 questions you posed near the end of your post:<BR/><BR/>1. The answer depends on how you define digestive fluids and the ability to poop. (These 2 things can be found in simple microorganisms, whereas the mouth and stomach are found in more complex, multicellular animals.) If you define digestive fluids as fluid that enables metabolic processes, this is probably what came first. The idea is that early RNA would become surrounded by lipid bubbles. These "protobionts" could have broken down simple molecules with either polypeptides or their rybozymes. Either way, this could be considered digestive fluid. However, some of the products from the breakdown of other molecules would be released from the cell after chemical reactions in a manner that could be interpreted as pooping.<BR/><BR/>2. The ability to utilize oxygen. It's believed that the earliest animals were marine and that gills came before lungs.<BR/><BR/>3. Bones, believe it or not, are believed to have first been formed to store excess Ca ions found in marine environments. As for whether or not they appeared before blood, blood came first. To explain it simply, there are animals with blood and no bones, but no animal has bones, but no blood.<BR/><BR/>F) I'd like to respond to the videos you linked to, but they total well over an hour in length and I don't have that much time on my hands.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15132816178488525628noreply@blogger.com