Closed Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Darwin's miniatures

  1. #1
    Richard Tallach's Avatar
    Richard Tallach is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Perth, Scotland UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Thanks
    384
    Thanked 614 Times in 413 Posts

    Darwin's miniatures

    Just because something is small, does that mean it's less complicated or less difficult for Darwinism to explain? Is it any easier to explain the existence of a flea by Darwinism than an elephant, because the flea is much smaller and a "simpler" form of life?

    To take this beyond biology, Is it any easier to explain one atom, or more fundamental particle coming out of nothing, or a whole Universe?

    This is a case of Darwinian wishful thinking and a rather simplistic fallacy, which people like Michael Behe and others are challenging.

    Here are some pictures from the Nikon Small World Competition, some of which are of biological entitites:-

    Nikon Small World competition: photographs through the microscope - Telegraph
    Richard
    communicant member, FCoS
    Perth, Scotland UK

    His Name forever shall endure;
    last like the sun it shall:
    Men shall be blessed in Him,
    and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  2. #2
    NateLanning's Avatar
    NateLanning is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    852
    Thanks
    391
    Thanked 144 Times in 90 Posts
    Does Darwinism attempt to explain the existence of atoms?
    Nate
    Protestant Reformed Churches in America
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  3. #3
    Bern's Avatar
    Bern is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 85 Times in 47 Posts


    I live about a mile from Downe House in England, where Darwin lived and worked. The local reformed baptist church use the large visitor presence to capitalise on witnessing opportunities, handing out tracts outside the gate debunking evolution! Great opportunity.

    Sorry.. go back to topic now
    Bern
    Reformed Baptist
    Kent UK
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Bern For This Useful Post:

    Berean (10-20-2009)

  5. #4
    fralo4truth is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cantonment, FL
    Posts
    65
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 12 Times in 8 Posts
    Some of those things that are small in size are not so in complexity!
    Kevin
    Pastor
    Primitive Baptist
    Pensacola, FL
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  6. #5
    Richard Tallach's Avatar
    Richard Tallach is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Perth, Scotland UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Thanks
    384
    Thanked 614 Times in 413 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NateLanning View Post
    Does Darwinism attempt to explain the existence of atoms?
    No. But broader atheistic evolutionism does. Everything "evolved" from the "simpler" to the more "complex", presumably because the "simpler" is assumed to be easy or relatively easy to explain without God. The universe emerged from a quantum fluctuation or a speck. Biological life evolved from a primordial soup that assembled itself into tiny "simple" life.

    What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?

    There's a world of false presuppositions and misconceptions behind how evolutionists use words, even "simple" ones.
    Richard
    communicant member, FCoS
    Perth, Scotland UK

    His Name forever shall endure;
    last like the sun it shall:
    Men shall be blessed in Him,
    and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  7. #6
    NateLanning's Avatar
    NateLanning is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    852
    Thanks
    391
    Thanked 144 Times in 90 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
    What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?
    The atheistic Darwinists that have instructed me over the past 10 years do mean "less complex" when they use the term "simple".

    For, example, I study how cytokines bind their cognate receptors, resulting in the activation of intracellular enzymes (kinases), which further results in the activation of nuclear transcription factors, which finally results in transcriptional activation of a set of genes. The fruit fly is often used as model for what happens in "more complex" animals and humans because the fruit fly has a "simpler" set of the above starting material: fruit flies only have three cytokines, one receptor, one kinase and one transcription factor, whereas "higher order" animals and humans have a couple dozen or so cytokines and receptors, 4 kinases and 6 transcription factors. Most of these components can be mixed and matched in this type of cellular signaling, too. You can see that while there are only a few outcomes of this type of signaling in fruit flies, "higher order" organisms can have literally hundreds of outcomes from this type of signaling.

    I'm convinced that "simple" is properly descriptive of fruit flies compared the "complexity" of humans in this particular example. However, I think I understand what you are trying to say in a broader context, and I tend to agree with you.
    Nate
    Protestant Reformed Churches in America
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to NateLanning For This Useful Post:

    Richard Tallach (10-20-2009)

  9. #7
    Augusta's Avatar
    Augusta is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    7,398
    Thanks
    2,890
    Thanked 1,160 Times in 721 Posts
    There are a series of movies called Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution. They're really great, very interesting. You might check them out if you have never seen them.
    Traci
    Lynnwood OPC

    "I have taken all my good deeds, and all my bad deeds, and cast them through each other in a heap before the Lord, and fled from both, and betaken myself to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him I have sweet peace."--David Dickson
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  10. #8
    Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
    Andrew P.C. is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Posts
    561
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by NateLanning View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
    What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?
    The atheistic Darwinists that have instructed me over the past 10 years do mean "less complex" when they use the term "simple".

    For, example, I study how cytokines bind their cognate receptors, resulting in the activation of intracellular enzymes (kinases), which further results in the activation of nuclear transcription factors, which finally results in transcriptional activation of a set of genes. The fruit fly is often used as model for what happens in "more complex" animals and humans because the fruit fly has a "simpler" set of the above starting material: fruit flies only have three cytokines, one receptor, one kinase and one transcription factor, whereas "higher order" animals and humans have a couple dozen or so cytokines and receptors, 4 kinases and 6 transcription factors. Most of these components can be mixed and matched in this type of cellular signaling, too. You can see that while there are only a few outcomes of this type of signaling in fruit flies, "higher order" organisms can have literally hundreds of outcomes from this type of signaling.

    I'm convinced that "simple" is properly descriptive of fruit flies compared the "complexity" of humans in this particular example. However, I think I understand what you are trying to say in a broader context, and I tend to agree with you.
    Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
    Andrew Cunningham
    Husband of: Allison Cunningham
    From:Reno, NV Currently: Fallbrook, CA
    Attending:Escondido United Reformed Church (seeking membership)
    "by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
    "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  11. #9
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oceano, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,252
    Thanks
    2,154
    Thanked 2,871 Times in 1,361 Posts
    Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
    Sure, I would. If I could actually see one. Which I can't. Since there aren't any.

    Sorry, I hate it when enthusiastic types go all out against evolution, since 90% of the time they cause more harm than good, not understanding the subject matter. Like in 90% of creation institutes...and their works.....which often make Christians look dumb...

    But on this subject, I felt I needed to call you on it ;-) There just aren't any examples of pre-Cambrian single celled organisms preserved. How could there be?
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  12. #10
    Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
    Andrew P.C. is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Posts
    561
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TimV View Post
    Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
    Sure, I would. If I could actually see one. Which I can't. Since there aren't any.

    Sorry, I hate it when enthusiastic types go all out against evolution, since 90% of the time they cause more harm than good, not understanding the subject matter. Like in 90% of creation institutes...and their works.....which often make Christians look dumb...

    But on this subject, I felt I needed to call you on it ;-) There just aren't any examples of pre-Cambrian single celled organisms preserved. How could there be?
    I'm not saying that there is such thing a the Cambrian period in the first place, I'm merely using scientific definitions to ask a particular question. Evolutionists use the Cambrian period as a way of explaining the burst of complex organisms in the so called fossil record.
    Andrew Cunningham
    Husband of: Allison Cunningham
    From:Reno, NV Currently: Fallbrook, CA
    Attending:Escondido United Reformed Church (seeking membership)
    "by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
    "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  13. #11
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oceano, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,252
    Thanks
    2,154
    Thanked 2,871 Times in 1,361 Posts
    I'm not saying that there is such thing a the Cambrian period in the first place, I'm merely using scientific definitions to ask a particular question. Evolutionists use the Cambrian period as a way of explaining the burst of complex organisms in the so called fossil record.
    Of course I'm not accusing you. But surely you see that there simply aren't any "pre-Cambrian" examples of single cells preserved. Believe me, I have more contempt for irresponsible creation science than the average atheistic scientist, but we're not going to see mitochondrial DNA extracted from "pre-Cambrian" cells, either from Tyrannosaurus or diatoms. It just ain't there.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  14. #12
    Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
    Andrew P.C. is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Posts
    561
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TimV View Post
    I'm not saying that there is such thing a the Cambrian period in the first place, I'm merely using scientific definitions to ask a particular question. Evolutionists use the Cambrian period as a way of explaining the burst of complex organisms in the so called fossil record.
    Of course I'm not accusing you. But surely you see that there simply aren't any "pre-Cambrian" examples of single cells preserved. Believe me, I have more contempt for irresponsible creation science than the average atheistic scientist, but we're not going to see mitochondrial DNA extracted from "pre-Cambrian" cells, either from Tyrannosaurus or diatoms. It just ain't there.
    Well, maybe if you could explain yourself a bit more. I know that creationism and ID are two different things but organizations such as the Discovery Institute have broken alot of ground with their work.

    By the way, the "T-Rex" wouldn't be considered pre-cambrian because of the complexity of it's body plan.
    Andrew Cunningham
    Husband of: Allison Cunningham
    From:Reno, NV Currently: Fallbrook, CA
    Attending:Escondido United Reformed Church (seeking membership)
    "by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
    "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  15. #13
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oceano, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,252
    Thanks
    2,154
    Thanked 2,871 Times in 1,361 Posts
    OK, then I'll just ask you a straight question. Could you please point me to a place I can see a pre-Cambrian cell?
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  16. #14
    Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
    Andrew P.C. is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Posts
    561
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 35 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TimV View Post
    OK, then I'll just ask you a straight question. Could you please point me to a place I can see a pre-Cambrian cell?
    The cell itself? I would have no idea. But according to the evolutionist point of view the pre-cambrian organisms are single-celled... according to the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record shows that there are muti-celled organisms in the pre-cambrian period... which is why i would agree with the point that i think you are tying to make but im not sure thats why i've asked you to explain.
    Andrew Cunningham
    Husband of: Allison Cunningham
    From:Reno, NV Currently: Fallbrook, CA
    Attending:Escondido United Reformed Church (seeking membership)
    "by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
    "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  17. #15
    NateLanning's Avatar
    NateLanning is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    852
    Thanks
    391
    Thanked 144 Times in 90 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew P.C. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NateLanning View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
    What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?
    The atheistic Darwinists that have instructed me over the past 10 years do mean "less complex" when they use the term "simple".

    For, example, I study how cytokines bind their cognate receptors, resulting in the activation of intracellular enzymes (kinases), which further results in the activation of nuclear transcription factors, which finally results in transcriptional activation of a set of genes. The fruit fly is often used as model for what happens in "more complex" animals and humans because the fruit fly has a "simpler" set of the above starting material: fruit flies only have three cytokines, one receptor, one kinase and one transcription factor, whereas "higher order" animals and humans have a couple dozen or so cytokines and receptors, 4 kinases and 6 transcription factors. Most of these components can be mixed and matched in this type of cellular signaling, too. You can see that while there are only a few outcomes of this type of signaling in fruit flies, "higher order" organisms can have literally hundreds of outcomes from this type of signaling.

    I'm convinced that "simple" is properly descriptive of fruit flies compared the "complexity" of humans in this particular example. However, I think I understand what you are trying to say in a broader context, and I tend to agree with you.
    Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
    I won't get into the pre/post-Cambrian issue, but yes, I consider single-cell organisms less complex than multi-cell organisms.

    Also, I'm not sure which institutes TimV is referring to, but I completely agree with him in that most of the good that creation-type institutes try to do just ends up making them/us look ignorant. Specifically, I haven't been particularly impressed with the material on the Discovery Institute's website. Maybe their books/DVDs are better, but the handful of pages that I've gone to really didn't help me answer the questions that I had.
    Nate
    Protestant Reformed Churches in America
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  18. #16
    ericfromcowtown's Avatar
    ericfromcowtown is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    561
    Thanks
    224
    Thanked 162 Times in 103 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
    Just because something is small, does that mean it's less complicated or less difficult for Darwinism to explain? Is it any easier to explain the existence of a flea by Darwinism than an elephant, because the flea is much smaller and a "simpler" form of life?

    To take this beyond biology, Is it any easier to explain one atom, or more fundamental particle coming out of nothing, or a whole Universe?

    This is a case of Darwinian wishful thinking and a rather simplistic fallacy, which people like Michael Behe and others are challenging.

    Here are some pictures from the Nikon Small World Competition, some of which are of biological entitites:-

    Nikon Small World competition: photographs through the microscope - Telegraph
    No, evolutionary biologists would not say that "small" equals less complex. They might point towards their theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, for example, and claim that just because most birds are smaller than most dinosaurs, that this doesn't mean that they're less complex. By small, however, are you meaning single-cellular? As other posters have mentioned there is a lot of complexity even at the cellular level.

    As to your question about whether it's easier to explain a cell arising out of nothing than a universe arising out of nothing, I would assume that the difficult part is the "out of nothing" not the size of the thing being created.
    Eric
    Woodgreen Presbyterian (PCA)
    Calgary, Alberta CANADA
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69