http://www.gokorea.info/evo/evo.htm
(This is growing
incredibly long. Last time I'm going to repost this. I'll just edit this post
and refer Junior to it when I have updates. So he can dutifully ignore the, now,
50 claims he's made that really need some small shred of actual evidence.)
|
|
|
|
Have you abandoned your claim no new "information" can be added to the genome? You've not defined information nor assailed the mechanisms I've shown you by which new DNA code can be added to the genome.
Dispute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleopolyploidy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
[quote]Major genome duplication events are not uncommon. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago[4]. Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six duplicate copies of its genome.[/quote]
Now here is the problem with your claims about the mathematical improbability of mutations resulting in anything beneficial. It only takes into account [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation]point mutations.[/url] That is merely one kind of mutation. Reproduction, however, can result in whole genes or even whole chromosomes being duplicated. Thats a whole lotta new information being inserted.
Now you cited a paper
by Behe (who believes in an old earth) that gene duplication does not result in
new functions via mutation. His claim was based on the probability argument.
His argument has been shown not to hold water:
http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/full/14/9/2217
In sum, you still need
to assail the mechanisms above.
Now you seemed to
clarify here:
Quote:
Paleopolyploidization
Once again...a matter of either duplicating/ copying pre-existing DNA: nothing
brand new added. or retaining useful genes, or losing
genes during diploidissation. Read it for yourself. Granted the cells may
increase in size, but they remain the same. What is new or different about a
slightly bigger clone?
So your claim now is mistakes
in reproduction results in the addition of duplicate genes et al. But they
don't mutate? They remain the same forever and never code for new proteins?
Contrary to all scientific evidence I've listed regarding gene duplication in
question 4 that show gene duplication, mutation, and new function developing
per those duplicated genes. You've made another claim to back a claim. But do
you have scientific evidence now to back your second claim?
And you still need to
define "information"
Quote:
That creatures have remained exactly the same for millenia.
Where is your scientific evidence to support this view? You
showed us a web site with many pretty pictures and someone making a claim
"look no change!" But that's a claim. In
science, you'd provide actual evidence for the lack of change.
Further,
so what? Evolution expects
well adapted species to not change unless there's a radical change in their
environment. You're merely cataloging examples. Let's examine Gould's testimony
in
[quote]
THE COURT: Did you say
equilibrium?
GOULD: Equilibrium. I
did leave out a point there. [b]That most species, successful species living in
large populations, do not change. In fact, are fairly stable in the fossil
record and live for a long time. The average duration of marine invertebrate
species was five to ten million years. During that time they may fluctuate
mildly in morphology, but most of them — I don't say there aren't exceptions —
most of them don't change very much. That's what we would expect for large,
successful, well-adapted populations.[/b]
And that's the equilibrium part. By
punctuation, we refer to those events of speciation where descendent species
rather rapidly in geological perspectives split off from their ancestors. And
that's the second point.[/quote]
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_gould.html
I'm not sure what
point you're trying to make by pointing out a fact of evolution.
Quote:
variety is decreasing.
Based on what evidence? Most ecological niches only support one or two species. There's a lot of variety when you look at the whole scope of time.
(claim fails)
Quote:
none of them contained clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations.
Clear to whom? The author or the peers who reviewed the published article? Fallacy here is equivocation. What's his test for clear, empirical support?
Dispute this:
[quote]1: Trends Genet. 2005 Jan;21(1):46-53.Click here to read Links
Gene duplication and complex circadian clocks in mammals.
Looby
P,
Faculty
of Life Sciences,
The circadian clock arose early in the evolution of life to enable organisms to adapt to the cycle of day and night. Recently, the extent and importance of circadian regulation of behaviour and physiology has come to be more fully realized. Core molecular cogs of circadian oscillators appear to have been largely conserved between such diverse organisms as Drosophila melanogaster and mammals. However, gene duplication events have produced multiple copies of many clock genes in mammals. Recent studies suggest that genome duplication has lead to increased circadian complexity and local tissue regulation. This has important implications for temporal regulation of behaviour via multiple clocks in the central nervous system, and also extends to the local physiology of major body organs and tissues.
PMID: 15680514 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE][/quote]
Gene duplicaiton = new information, not a loss. Plus new functionality.
Grab a look here:
Spontaneous mutations in diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae: more beneficial than expected. Joseph SB, Hall DW. Genetics. 2004 [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15611159]Dec;168(4):1817-25.[/url]
[quote]We performed a 1012-generation mutation-accumulation (MA) experiment in the yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The MA lines exhibited a significant reduction in mean fitness and a significant increase in variance in fitness. We found that 5.75% of the fitness-altering mutations accumulated were beneficial. This finding contradicts the widely held belief that nearly all fitness-altering mutations are deleterious. The mutation rate was estimated as 6.3 x 10(-5) mutations per haploid genome per generation and the average heterozygous fitness effect of a mutation as 0.061. These estimates are compatible with previous estimates in yeast.[/quote]
The chemokine receptor 5 Delta32 mutation is associated with increased renal survival in patients with IgA nephropathy. Panzer, et al. Kidney Int. [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15610230]2005 Jan;67(1):75-81. [/url]
Here's a new one:
[quote]Perfeito, L., L. Fernandes, C. Mota, and
Abstract: Evolution by natural selection is
driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We
measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial
mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under
conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages
carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a
rate on the order of 10–5 per genome per generation,
which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean
selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution
has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.[/quote]
Note the end of the paper:
[quote]Given the estimates for the overall mutation rate in E. coli and
its genomic deleterious mutation rate, our estimate of Ua
implies that 1 in 150 newly arising mutations is beneficial and that
1 in 10 fitness-affecting mutations increases the fitness of the
individual carrying it. Hence, an enterobacterium has an enormous
potential for adaptation and may help explain how antibiotic
resistance and virulence evolve so quickly.[/quote]
This has been put to
you a couple times now and you've not responded. Your claim fails.
Quote:
Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate parts emerge at the same time and in full working order. Otherwise, it will serve no purpose, and will fall apart over time and disappear.
Again, you've got evolution 100% wrong. Please find one non-hostile source that claims or even intimates evolution works in the way you claim, that complex structures emerge at the same time and in full working order.
Read. Learn. But you won't.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Question: where does the above go wrong?
Quote:
It has actually been proved that it is impossible for the first living cell, or even just one of the millions of protein molecules in that cell, to have come about by chance. This has been demonstrated not only by experiments and observations, but also by mathematical calculations of probability. In other words, evolution collapses at the very first step: that of explaining the emergence of the first living cell.
I asked you for the source of this claim. What scientific paper has argued such? You did not answer and you simply restated your original premise. Only you seem to think that's a good argument.
Let me ask this
simply:
You claimed there were
experiments. What?
You claimed there were
observations. What?
(Remember low question
numbers mean this question remains unanswered for a long long time now.)
Quote:
In fact all evidence shows cells are unchanged since time immerorial. If you tell me certain fossils are X million years old, why do they have identical cells to today?
What do you mean by identical cells? Because a nerve cell isn't really identical to a red blood cell. New cells have certainly appeared according to evolution. Red blood cells, photosensitive cells, cells that can digest nylon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6048186.stm
[quote]Although the cells show some modern traits, they crucially lack others.
"Even in these late-stage embryos, there is no evidence of the formation of a tissue layer," said Dr Donoghue. [/quote]
And:
http://www.eurekah.com/chapter/2997
[quote]The moderate diversity of preservable eukaryotic organisms includes cell
walls without surface ornament (but with complex ultrastructure), with
regularly distributed surface ornamentation, and with irregularly or regularly
arranged processes.[/quote]
What? I thought you said cells haven't changed?
Anyway, your claim
fails based on the evidence.
What is your current position on "there are no positive mutations?" Because although you seem to indicate your position is (a) you keep cut 'n' pasting claims that accept (a), (b), (c).
a) There are no positive mutations.
b) There are positive mutations but none that add "information". All mutations mean a loss in DNA code.
c) There are positive mutations that add "information" but none that can add new features/morphological changes.
d) There are positive mutations that add "information" and can add new features/morphological changes but there are no accumulation of positive mutations that can result in macro changes.
[b]Addendum[/b]
I noticed even your creationwiki states there are positive mutations. Check out its lists of arguments creationists shouldn't use:
[quote]There are no beneficial mutations
Some information-losing mutations can be beneficial in the right circumstances. [/quote]
So creationwiki supports A but not B, C, D. Do you agree?
Quote:
Once again, science should be based on evidence, not theory.
Do you believe theory in science is not based on evidence? Do you believe science calls things "theories" without significant lines of evidence?
I think you clarified this with:
Quote:
Any other theory is subjected to the utmost scrutiny..with evolution any new idea is rubber stamped and fed to the masses on a whim. "God .is .dead, God. is .dead' is the zombie mantra you've been subliminally fed since birth.
In other words, evolutionary theory is not subject to scrutiny by science while some other undefined science is. First, give me an example of a science you believe is sufficiently scrutinized. I would gather the vast majority of astronomy isn't, in your opinion, as it claims the universe is 14 billion years old, not 6,000. Nuclear physics is likewise out as it directly claims radiometric decay indicates rocks are millions of years old, again contrary to your belief the universe is 6,000 years old. Since evolution is at the core of modern biology and genetics I guess you also toss those out as unscrutinized science.
Also, many of the top journals like Nature and Science publish a range of the BEST papers from many fields of science. So are Nature and Science totally crap? Or do they apply a different level of scrutiny to evolution?
Also, you fault evolution for making claims, not subjecting them to rigor, and then simply fed to the masses. However, when creationists make claims and don't back them up with similar scrutiny (ie, Castenedolo and Calaveras remains), you're more than happy to feed this to us as evidence. You see no double standard here?
Do you believe your creation scientists are doing real science? If so, where is their published, peer reviewed research? Where is, at least, their published, peer reviewed criticism of the various lines of evidence of evolution? Do they only take their arguments to the public via web pages? Or do they take their arguments to science via the system of science?
You claimed:
"You think creationists aren't committed scientists? that test and conduct research?"
Being a scientist doesn't mean their claim is correct. They need to test those claims and then submit them for inspection by their peers and allow such tests to be repeated. So I'm sure you can provide me with links to the real claim testing that's going on.
The earth is 6,000 years old. If science claimed a date for the earth, they would do hard research to support that claim. 6,000 years old is a huge whopping claim and one that BEGS REALLY GOOD SCIENCE FROM YOUR COMMITTED SCIENTISTS. So where is it? Are they so freakin' lazy they can't do a hair of actual research on this huge boner of a claim?
You asked for evidence for macro evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Pick one. What's the problems you see? No hand waving now or hand waving by proxy. Your first response was, unfortunately, hand waving. I'm particular curious about the molecular evidence and where you think that line of evidence goes wrong. Humans, apes, and other species share certain genetic errors that could not have come about via random chance. More recent their common ancestor, more shared errors. You waved your hand and claimed these errors came about after "the fall". Errr. That still doesn't explain how human and apes have shared errors unless they had a common ancestor. Please explain the origin of these errors. Because evolution does. And it's the only theory on the table that does.
[img]http://img.photojerk.com/mindme/600thefall.jpg[/img]
Here is your hand waving:
a) how many involve the development of new structures? 0
What do you mean by new structures? And so what?
b) how many involve a new function by losing information/ malfunction? most
Give me an example and the scientific evidence.
c) how many could account for massive evolutionary change across all species as proposed by evolutionary theory? 0
Alone? No. But that's what a scientific theory is. It is multiple lines of evidence (29 in this case). No single line may be sufficient.
d) how many involve bacterial variations falling within the limited expression of existing traits? Most
Give me an example and the scientific evidence.
You claimed you did "research" but you never showed me the research. I note your previous research claimed evidence for man/dino tracks but the research, when we evolutionists actually bothered to hit the page down button, found out it was just about hominid tracks. Research? Show me. Don't tell me. This one is still firmly in the hand waving category.
Quote:
if you think about it.. most environmental changes have been rapid.
Really? Because those glaciers just popped out of nowhere. What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Addendum:
Another user put it to you: what rapid environmental change
killed off the dinosaurs in
According to Hovind:
"After the flood they were hunted to the point of extinction in most parts of the world by man."
http://www.chick.com/information/authors/hovind.asp
So all this hunting all over the world and not a single trophy
kept anywhere? Why have dino bones been
found in middens? Why are no mighty hunters buried with dino trophies? Why do
we only find animal bones contemporary with the hunters of the day? Why no
trilobite necklaces?
You did not that the
Do you really think creationwiki is a valid scientific
source? If it references no actual scientific research, is this good evidence?
Your one source on mutations references the watchtower. Is that a scientific
journal with peer review? Do you believe the watchtower offers correct biblical
interpretations? If not, then why do you assume they will provide objective
science?
You keep repeating
this Watchtower claim about no positive mutations but where's your evidence?
http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Mutations_don't_produce_new_features
It's a nice little
fantasy and it lists two sources:
Source:
* Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. [b]1985[/b]
. Life--How Did It Get
Here?
* Morris, Henry M. [b]1985[/b]
. Scientific
Creationism.
Leaving aside these sources are not scientific sources (you really believe what the Jehovah's Witnesses have to say?), [b]how do sources from 1985 counter papers published and cited as evidence from the 1990s and the start of this century?[/b]
Again, pretty, pretty
claims but where's the evidence?
Quote:
Do you believe DNA can survive 50 million years? how about soft tissue? or bacteria? because all of this has lasted apparently much longer than scientists allow. Because the earth is much younger than thought.
What is your dating method for arriving at the young age of these so called items? Going to invoke "common knowledge" again? Sorry, personal incredulity is not evidence. Another fallacy you keep making. Maybe the DNA isn't 25 million years old but 3 million years old. Or 800,000 years old. What is your scientific justification for YOUR date?
(claim fails)
Quote:
There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA, it is severely limited to that.
What is your evidence for this? I've shown already that a small change in a single gene can result in a tangible morphological change. You had no counter argument. Such changes over time lead to new species. And you're also ignoring the other half of the mutation mechanism where whole new blocks of DNA are added via errors in replication. Mutation is not merely shuffling the existing deck. It's also adding whole new cards and sometimes whole new decks. I outlined this in regards to item 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29
What evidence do you have the above does not occur?
Dispute
gene/morphology changes:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/34/12659
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33730
http://www.hhmi.org/news/kingsley4.html
You might also want to familiarize yourself with homeobox dna as we'll probably get into that regarding simple mutations and morphological change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox
A few to chew on when you're up to speed:
Dlx5 drives Runx2 expression and osteogenic differentiation in developing cranial suture mesenchyme.
Holleville N, Matéos S, Bontoux M, Bollerot K, Monsoro-Burq AH.
CNRS UMR 7128, Institut d'Embryologie Cellulaire et Moléculaire, 94736
Craniofacial bones derive from cephalic neural crest, by endochondral or intramembranous ossification. Here, we address the role of the homeobox transcription factor Dlx5 during the initial steps of calvaria membranous differentiation and we show that Dlx5 elicits Runx2 induction and full osteoblast differentiation in embryonic suture mesenchyme grown "in vitro". First, we compare Dlx5 expression to bone-related gene expression in the developing skull and mandibular bones. We classify genes into three groups related to consecutive steps of ossification. Secondly, we study Dlx5 activity in osteoblast precursors, by transfecting Dlx5 into skull mesenchyme dissected prior to the onset of either Dlx5 and Runx2 expression or osteogenesis. We find that Dlx5 does not modify the proliferation rate or the expression of suture markers in the immature calvaria cells. Rather, Dlx5 initiates a complete osteogenic differentiation in these early primary cells, by triggering Runx2, osteopontin, alkaline phosphatase, and other gene expression according to the sequential temporal sequence observed during skull osteogenesis "in vivo". Thirdly, we show that BMP signaling activates Dlx5, Runx2, and alkaline phosphatase in those primary cultures and that a dominant-negative Dlx factor interferes with the ability of the BMP pathway to activate Runx2 expression. Together, these data suggest a pivotal role of Dlx5 and related Dlx factors in the onset of differentiation of chick calvaria osteoblasts.
A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals.
Luo ZX, Chen P, Li G, Chen M.
Detachment of the three tiny middle ear bones from the reptilian mandible is an important innovation of modern mammals. Here we describe a Mesozoic eutriconodont nested within crown mammals that clearly illustrates this transition: the middle ear bones are connected to the mandible via an ossified Meckel's cartilage. The connected ear and jaw structure is similar to the embryonic pattern in modern monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and placental mammals, but is a paedomorphic feature retained in the adult, unlike in monotreme and placental adults. This suggests that reversal to (or retention of) this premammalian ancestral condition is correlated with different developmental timing (heterochrony) in eutriconodonts. This new eutriconodont adds to the evidence of homoplasy of vertebral characters in the thoraco-lumbar transition and unfused lumbar ribs among early mammals. This is similar to the effect of homeobox gene patterning of vertebrae in modern mammals, making it plausible to extrapolate the effects of Hox gene patterning to account for homoplastic evolution of vertebral characters in early mammals.
Pelvic skeleton reduction and Pitx1 expression in threespine stickleback populations.
Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony
Brook University, Stony
The pelvic skeleton of threespine stickleback fish
contributes to defence against predatory vertebrates, but rare populations
exhibit vestigial pelvic phenotypes. Low ionic strength water and absence of
predatory fishes are associated with reduction of the pelvic skeleton, and lack
of Pitx1 expression in the pelvic region is evidently the genetic basis for
pelvic reduction in several populations. Pelvic vestiges in most populations
are larger on the left (left-biased), apparently because Pitx2 is expressed
only on that side. We used whole-mount in situ hybridization to study Pitx1
expression in 19 populations of Gasterosteus aculeatus from lakes around
PMID: 17710856 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
And about your research skills. You
claimed you did "research". That's claim 11. (Ain't it great I
faithfully document your claims, evasions, and hand waving and can bring them
up in a second, lest we have to debate again your silly claim for the nth time. It really would be easier if you just got the
scientific evidence for your claims. Not just answering claims with more
claims.)
What is your definition of a transitional fossil? What would you accept as evidence for such? I've noted, for example, if we found modern humans in geological layers where we only find trilobites, I would accept that as a solid disproof of evolution. What would you accept as evidence for a transitional form or feature?
Answered! Gosh! 1 out of 16! Unfortunately it's not quite the definition peer reviewed science uses so I understand why your reject this evidence. So then let me ask you:
Why do you think paleontology accepts this as evidence?
And
Quote:
Thus..we need fossils of somthing that is almost a stegasaurus.
And your definition of "almost" is?
Anyway, dispute, for
example, the fossils that show the transition from reptile jaws to mammalian
jaws.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html
Quote:
Bones and hard material will readilly fossilize. So will soft bodied organisms.(This is for you JMO & mindmetoo).
Readily? What is your evidence soft bodied organisms
"readily" fossilize?
Quote:
The Cambrian era is characterised by the sudden appearance of highly complex lifeforms.
Define sudden.
Quote:
The Cambrian era is characterised by the sudden appearance of highly complex lifeforms. Such lifeforms would have required precursors: transitional, intermediate forms. Yet there are none. Not a single one. The strata representing the era immediately prior reveals little more than single celled lifeforms. No evolutionist, letalone eslteachers on a this messageboard, can explain the mystery.
This has been provided many times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
What are your problems with it? Never answered this direct question. C'mon,
demolish this link.
You state:
You already largely ignored the
Cambrian explosion part of this debate. Now I'll follow your example of digging
in heels until you provide an answer. OK?
But it's been sitting
in question 19 for several days now. Read. Don't hand wave.
Quote:
Theres your naiivete once again. The earth is flat was at the core of "modern science" for how many centuries? You think modern biology is advanced? So why can't they make a functioning cell in a lab? When it comes to the mastery behind creation, we humans are far lower than amoebas on the intellectual scale.
No. Modern science and the process of science emerged long after the shape of the earth was known. Many religious people thought it was flat. But many employing the inklings of the scientific method understood the shape of the earth and calculated it's circumference accurately. Your analogy is faulty.
And again, it is peer reviewed science that over throws older ideas in science. I don't know many pastors who have over thrown a scientific theory from the pulpit and with cute, unsubstantiated claims.
How do you think web pages full of untested claims, even if proposed by scientists, can over throw evolution if they don't actually test those claims?
[b]20b)[/b]
You also claim the catholic church viewed the earth as flat but not
protestants. There were certainly plenty of Catholics who believed the earth
was round, contrary to church dogma. Could you provide an example of a
representative body of the protestant religion that promoted the idea of a
round earth before catholic acceptance?
Quote:
Creationists have claimed they are identical to a child barefoot. Such a possibility is clearly not even mentioned in your evolution factbooks. I don't possess photos of the prints or photos of a barefoot child to compare them, so i can't say; but it at least seems a possibility and one that no doubt evolutionists fail to adress. if you can find them doing so, put it up.
Yeah. Claimed. And their evidence is? They are making this claim it's human prints. Why should evolutionists make this claim? Where is their evidence for their claim? (You made this claim twice, twice I challenged you for the evidence, twice you didn't provide evidence. Sure seems to me when you ask me to back up my claims, I do. You habitually don't. Why? You have none?)
(claim fails)
You offered the Castenedolo skeletons as evidence modern humans existed in earlier geological strata. Tomato pointed out:
ANSWERED! You
retracted your claim!
(claim fails)
Quote:
It is an "unfalsifiable" hypothesis.
First, don't you claim you've put it asunder with all your mighty unsupported claims? Odd you believe you've falsified it out of one side of your mouth but out of the other side you claim it's unfalsifiable. Fallacy: inconsistency.
Again more evidence you're simply not reading the evidence and waving your hands.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
That link which you simply dismissed without argument or even clarification when I called for it makes it very clear how the evidence can be falsified. You're wrong and speaking from an obvious position of gross ignorance on this matter. Sorry. Try again.
Do you still believe evolution is unfalsifiable?
You recently returned
to this claim despite question 23, despite being told by the participants,
even, what they would considered a falsification.
Anyway, you've simply ignored this evidence and stuck your head in a dark
bucket.
Quote:
6. If intelligent design relies on weak arguments and analogies, why has it been relatively successful in the past few years at getting a serious airing…?
Where? Before scientific conferences? In peer reviewed journals? Oh you mean creationist web sites and churches? Define "serious airing". Oprah's The Secret has gotten a lot of "serious airing". The Secret is based on weak arguments. UFOs and psychic research get a lot of "serious airing". Are these things valid because they get this undefined airing?
ID has been kicking around as a hypothesis for 25 years. Creationism, well, forever. Now, here's an interesting thing. In real science, if a hypothesis has legs, if there is something to it, it evolves (ha) into a real scientific discipline. Departments at major universities are set up. Journals appear. Nature/Science publish papers. You can't hold back science when there's real science to it. DNA to now? The discovery of the neutron to now? Computers? Aeronautics? Antibiotics?
Science is done by young, fiercely independent ego driven people. Think of Dave's users. That's the hyper competitive level in science. Young grad students all want to make their name chasing down new ideas. If there's something to ID, something really behind fancy ID ideas like organisms bring about their own change, people will get on this and do research. But they don't. Why? Because it's crap. Total crap without a shred of evidence or even biologic probability.
The hallmark of a pseudoscience, like creationism/ID, is:
a) they keep restating their claims
in the popular literature (the eye is too complex has been kicking around since
b) they don't scientifically test their claims.
The world is 6,000 years old. Test that claim. Sure seems to me scientists all around the globe without western religious political baggage would kinda notice the supposed evidence for a 6,000 year old earth. Odd science in the 19th century approached geology under the assumption that the world was very young and the flood created mountains and valleys. But as they accumulated evidence, they began to conclude very different things.
Why do you suppose ID/creationism has offered nothing new, let alone strong scientific evidence of some core claims like a young earth, even after 100+ years?
Hmmmm?
Oh, conspiracy. Right?
(claim fails)
From Tomato:
I just learned something which shattered my faith in humanity:
The Creationists accused a scientist of attempting to erase evidence of human-dinosaur footprints:
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/EarlyFootprints.html
but the accusation was not true:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/rebutt.html
And here I thought Creationists were good Christians who don't bear false witness!
I thought all those lies in evolution were fatal to the
theory. What about these lies? Not fatal? You call evolutionists liars. Your sources don't lie?
(answered)
Rapier, here are two sites you've provided as evidence:
http://www.calarts.edu/~shockley/castenedolo.html
You claimed this was evidence of humans in very old strata, thereby a falsification of evolution.
You also cite the creationwiki as some kind of authority. Now check out this link from your site:
http://creationwiki.org/Arguments_creationists_should_not_use?setlang=pi
[quote]
The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in "old" strata invalidate the geologic column. The evidence is not sound.[/quote]
So site 1 says "it's evidence
of humans in old strata" and site 2 lists it under "Arguments that
should definitely not be used". So which way do you want to have it? Which
source do you trust?
ANSWERED! You
retracted your claim about castenedolo. I trust you won't use http://www.calarts.edu/~shockley/ anymore?
Behe believes in an
old earth and common descent. You've used his claims on ID and gene
duplication. Clearly you believe in a young earth. If Behe is so much in error
as regards his theories that require an old earth, why do you view his claims
as valid, since at their core they run contrary to your belief in a young earth.
Let me put it to you
fast 'n' simple:
Young
earth.
What evidence?
Where is your limit in
terms of change? I think you've claimed previously species can change
enough that they lose the ability interbreed, which is pretty much one of the definitions of a new species. A wolf can change into a dog but it will
always be a dog. What is your evidence mutation can't carry it past
"dogness"? Not claims. Evidence.
You:
Once again, where are
the fossils showing your transition from single cells to complex organisms with
bones, fins, legs, wings, eyes, hearts, lungs, kidneys, and so on? Where are
they?
What evolutionist
claims the fossil record represents this kind of gapless, linear evolution?
Quote:
If it wasn't for creationists uncovering all your forgeries and sleight of hand, who knows what heights of ridiculous fantasy you'd be teaching.
Maybe you could name one example where a creationist has righted a scientific wrong. Claim. Evidence.
When you speak of forgeries, do you mean Dmitri Kouznetsov. A creationist?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html#trott
It seems to me evolutionists uncover your lies (see question
25 as well). Not the other way around. *pat* *pat*
Quote:
Scientific research
supports my claims better than it does yours.
You yourself admit
there is no scientific evidence you can call upon. So it's odd now you're doing
a 180 and claiming science supports your claims. Gosh. Which is it?
Do you have peer reviewed
scientific evidence to support 6,000 year old earth, super DNA that let man
live 900 years, the flood, etc? If you got it, lay it on the table. Because you
doubt evolution does not then mean your beliefs win by default. That's a false
dichotomy.
My statement of the ID
argument (which I remind you involves an old earth):
Organisms engineer
themselves. The genome only rearranges existing DNA.
Your acceptance:
here are the only 2 sentences of truth i've ever
heard you utter.
That's your claim. Another claim. So you got the evidence that organisms
engineer themselves and also do it in the space of 6,000 years?
Quote:
So... if everyone
obeyed the christian commands "thou shalt not
kill, commit adultery, steal, lie" etc etc then it would have no impact?
Actually those are the
Jewish commands. So right, if we were all good Jews life would be good. Do you
agree?
Quote:
You
saying everything no longer with us is because it changed into something else?
Do you believe we've
been saying all this time that everything alive evolves into something else? Do
you believe this is a central claim of evolution? If so, can you provide a non
hostile link that makes this claim about evolution.
To cite your
creationwiki:
"Evolutionary
theory does not require the parent species to become extinct."
http://creationwiki.org/Arguments_creationists_should_not_use?setlang=pi
Quote:
The findings suggest
that genetic diversity was greater in earlier Neanderthal history than in later
times, when modern humans started to arrive in
First modern humans
are not linear descendants of the neanderthal. They
are our cousins. Their heterozygosity has nothing to do with humans. Second
many populations undergo reduced heterozygosity. Who said some populations and
species don't experience this. Again, you've been given examples of mutation
that increases information and function.
What is the point of
this reference other than example of what evolution predicts: some populations
under go bottlenecks? Some recover. Some don't.
You stated Mars once
underwent a global flood. What is this evidence of? The Genesis account
happened on Mars? That Europa is a moon covered entirely in liquid water is
evidence some planets can be covered in water. So what? This is a non sequitur.
What is your scientific evidence the Earth once was earthy and then was covered
in a global flood in a short period of time and then the water all went away?
Quote:
So tell me tomato- why
does virtually every new fossil discovery nowadays force scientists to realise
that such complex species lived "far earlier than previously
thought?"
What is your basis for
the claim virtually every new fossil forces a roll back of dates? The ones that
require a roll back are news worthy. The ones that don't don't make the popular
press. This is a form of the file drawer effect. Some fossil finds will push
back dates. Some won't . Some me evidence virtually
every new fossil is pushing back dates. No cherry picking now.
Quote:
Adam apparently had
chromosomal fusion. No longer perfect- eating that apple was
a costly slip up. Humans also had greater genetic variety in their DNA. It has
been lost- by mutation. Organisms including humans have been playing a losing
game ever since that first mistake. to illustrate
this...
Apparently? Ummm. Like. You got
evidence for that? Or even something that supports the claim in terms of
biologic plausibility?
You cite this article
as evidence of human/Neanderthal interbreeding:
http://www.livescience.com/health/061030_neanderthal_hybrid.html
You cite this article
as evidence of all evolution results in loss:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5052414.stm
Oddly, the second
article contradicts the first.
"The DNA studies conducted so far suggest
little, if any, interbreeding between Neanderthals and moderns took place."
So which is it in your scientific opinion? Interbred or not?
Also the livescience page links to:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/051109_evolution_science.html
Weird you trust such a
source that so wholly embraces, gasp, evolution.
greedy_bones wrote:
ancestors of modern tetrapods are the tetrapodomorphs of
which there are numerous fossils and exhibit characteristics which are part
fish/part amphibian and are closely related to both the coelocanths and the
lungfish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapodomorph
Junior wrote:
bollox
From one of the
paper's below:
"Although
the body scales, fin rays, lower jaw and palate are comparable to those in more
primitive sarcopterygians, the new species also has a shortened skull roof, a
modified ear region, a mobile neck, a functional wrist joint, and other
features that presage tetrapod conditions."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html
This is exactly the
scientific definition of a transitional fossil. Older species
A, newer species C. Middle species B with characteristics of both.
Now you have any
published peer reviewed science to contradict? Your page has a lot of claims. Claims. Evidence?
Nowhere Man wrote:
This pushing, based on
geological evidence, has taken millions of years to occur.
Junior wrote:
Thats based on the assumption that everything has
always happened at the same pace it does when they studied it.
You have evidence to
doubt this assumption? Further, who claims this is the assumption? Evidence.
Quote:
You see you start with
an ancestor exiting the ark. By a process of culling genetic information,
isolated populations then take new forms. Devolution.
For example you have the mosquitos that took only 50 years to form a new
species in
So we can get a new
species in 50 years but in 60 million years there just isn't enough time for
other stuff. Uh huh.
(1) High information content
machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
Saying "there are some things you won't
figure out" is not really a scientific prediction. We call that pessimism. How do we distinguish between things just
hard to figure out and things that have no solution in biology? And such is
already an assumption of any scientific endeavor. But as noted previously, if
this is a prediction, it's not fared very well. Flagellum?
Failed. Clotting? Failed. Bombardier beetle? Failed.
Quote:
Fossilized seashells
on the mountaintops?
What are mountain tops
now used to be below sea level. Do you have evidence these mountain tops were
not once below sea level?
Quote:
You're 75% the same as
a nematode worm.,for example,- according to the Human
Genome project. Its perfectly possible for vastly
different organisms to share almost the same DNA configuration.
Yes. Perfectly in keeping with evolution. Again, I refer you to
that link on cladistics. Read it. Come back and tell me then why this is
troubling.
You've cited the Meister
prints as evidence of a contemporary man/trilobite time frame. Do you still
believe this is good evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html
"After mainstream
rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes,
1986; Strahler, 1987), most creationists quietly and wisely ceased promoting
this specimen. However, a few individuals continue to advocate it as an
out-of-order fossil."
Indeed, your AiG site
also argues against this as evidence:
"7. The
Meister sandalprint is uncritically accepted, despite not being part of a
trackway, and despite the geology there being such that all sorts of flat,
spawled shapes arise from natural processes."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp
What kind of research
are you doing? Remember you require rigor. Is this an example of rigor on your
part?
Regarding
your claim that the Bible is full of modern scientific insight. To quote your creationwiki:
"There is amazing
modern scientific insight in the Bible
The original authors did not intend it to
be understood the way that some people read science into it."
Do you still believe
this? What does the bible have to say on heliocentrism? Anything
about the American or Antarctic continents?
Quote:
Does
neofunctionalization come under your definition of "random"? It
illustrates how organisms can engineer themselves to a degree. It shows design.
Could you supply the
scientific evidence for this?
Where you getting
this? Lets look at a paper on neofunctionalization.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/2/1157
[quote]Rapid
Subfunctionalization Accompanied by Prolonged and Substantial
Neofunctionalization in Duplicate Gene Evolution
Xionglei He and
Jianzhi Zhang1
Department of Ecology
and Evolutionary Biology,
1 Corresponding
author: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan,
3003 Natural Science Bldg., 830 North University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
E-mail:
jianzhi@umich.edu
[b]Gene duplication is
the primary source of new genes. Duplicate genes that are stably preserved in
genomes usually have divergent functions.[/b]
The general rules governing the functional
divergence, however, are not well understood and are controversial. The
neofunctionalization (NF) hypothesis asserts that after duplication one
daughter gene retains the ancestral function while the other acquires new
functions. In contrast, the subfunctionalization (SF) hypothesis argues that
duplicate genes experience degenerate mutations that reduce their joint levels
and patterns of activity to that of the single ancestral gene. We here show
that neither NF nor SF alone adequately explains the genome-wide patterns of
yeast protein interaction and human gene expression for duplicate genes.
Instead, our analysis reveals rapid SF, accompanied by prolonged and
substantial NF in a large proportion of duplicate genes, suggesting a new model
termed subneofunctionalization (SNF). [b]Our results demonstrate that enormous
numbers of new functions have originated via gene duplication.[/b]
[/quote]
So what's any of this
got to do with genes engineering themselves? Where is your evidence neofunctionalization is about genes
engineering themselves. All I see is more evidence that gene duplication adds
new function.
Junior, do you really
understand the difference between a claim and scientific evidence?
Quote:
You've just tried a
sleight of hand maneouvre to repackage and present Paleopolyploidy as
"evolution". Crafty guise indeed.
It's not? Based on
what evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleopolyploidy#Evolutionary_Importance
What is your problem
with the above?
mindmetoo wrote:
You'll notice when I
make claims, I support them with either links to the primary research (ie
pubmed abstracts) or secondary sources that list the primary references.
You:
-links that don't
actually back you up, how useful Laughing
Could you give me an
example of a link that doesn't back up one of my claims? Very odd again, you
make a claim without supporting evidence. You can't even use the material
within this debate to support your claim. So claim. Evidence?
Quote:
Alleles are not
cannons shuttling around a deck until they by chance fit into a slot: they are
designed to perform a service with incredible accuracy.
Oh, designed. Could
you supply the scientific evidence for this?
Junior wrote:
Its a ductile fold.
I'm still curious where you found this
claim about the
Junior wrote:
How then did your nylon bugs produce exactly
the right reaction and function required, at the right moment, as and when
needed, on cue? Surely they would have randomly tried a billion useless
adaptations before by chance hitting the right one? You see organisms have been
made by a benevolent creator that allowed them to be self regulating to some
degree. God foresaw changes in the world and made organisms perfectly designed
to adapt as and when needed. randomness just cannot
account for the degree of microevolution or the way in which organisms regulate
themselves.
To this claim, I asked for evidence. How is the
nylon bug not an example of mutation that adds information and provides a
beneficial adaptation but now an example of "design"? It should be
noted Junior has been provided the nylon bug page. Think he looked at it? No.
Because then he offered this bizarre page:
http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombinationreview.html
Which
talks about recombination, mentions nothing about the nylon bug, and doesn't
even deal with the insertion/frame shift that resulted in the ability of the
bacteria to digest nylon.
Weirder still he seems
to cite a paper that only supports genetic evolution. Junior cited this:
"The ability to
induce homologous recombination in response to unfavorable environmental
changes would be adaptive for each species, as it would increase genetic
diversity and would help to avoid species' extinction. Homologous recombination
would be more efficient for evolution than random mutagenesis or nonhomologous
recombination. Although the latter two will mostly disrupt previously existing
genes rather than creating new ones, homologous recombination can use
previously existing genes as building blocks, thus enabling the creation of new
proteins with more complex functions in a step-by-step manner." 13 Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98(15):8425-8432 (2001)"
So, Junior:
I don't see how this
paper is inconsistent with genetic evolution or argues for "design".
Recombination is the process by which we avoid the accumulation of deleterious
mutations. If we didn't evolve this, we'd not be here. And note the "step
by step". That's exactly what evolution argues for. One
grain at a time. One grain at a time, my lil DP.
So thanks for citing a paper in support. Also the paper runs counter to your
claims everything results in a loss of genetic diversity. You're not really
very good at this, are you? Did you read what you cited? Did you understand it?
Junior wrote:
And dating methods are
dubious.
Oh good. Perhaps you
could cite the peer reviewed papers that show the dubious nature of dating
methods?
Junior wrote:
Evolutionism is
practically a religion.
How is it "practically
a religion"? Can you define "religion" for us?
Junior wrote:
If a threatened
species dies out, its simply dismissed darwinianly as "not strong enough
to survive or adapt".
Really? You have some quotes to support that? What?
Back a claim? I won't stay up waiting for it. (Since it's on the claim list, I
was wise not to stay up.)
Junior wrote:
Evolution entails no
morality: ask Hitler and Lenin- they were staunch evolutionists.
Lenin quoted
Junior wrote:
That deliberate human genetic
engineering has been shown to have limitations?
Claim. Evidence?
mindmetoo wrote:
I've asked you what
evidence do you have that small changes cannot add up to big changes over time,
in the manner of a man adding a grain of sand at a time to create a very large
pile. Now, demonstrate the limiting mechanism.
Junior wrote:
That there is zero
evidence to show it happened, for one?
I encourage you to go
to pubmed, search on "gene duplication" and dispute the findings of
the 5000+ results.
Quote:
Evolution of the
neuropeptide Y family: New genes by chromosome duplications in early
vertebrates and in teleost fishes.
Sundström G, Larsson
TA, Brenner S, Venkatesh B, Larhammar D.
Department
of Neuroscience,
Despite sequence
information from many vertebrates the evolution of the neuropeptide Y (NPY)
family of peptides has been difficult to resolve, particularly among ray-finned
fishes. We have used chromosomal location and sequence analyses to identify
orthologs and gene duplicates in teleost fish genomes. Our analyses support
origin of NPY and peptide YY (PYY) from a common ancestor in early vertebrate
evolution through a chromosome duplication. We report
here that the teleost tetraploidization generated duplicates of both NPY and
PYY and that all four genes are still present in the two sequenced pufferfish
genomes Tetraodon nigroviridis and Takifugu rubripes as well as three-spined
stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. The zebrafish Danio rerio NPYb gene has
probably been lost whereas medaka, Oryzias latipes seems to lack PYYb. Some of
the previously published PYY sequences were misidentified and actually
constitute NPYb. Our analyses confirm that the peptide previously named PY in
some fish species is a duplicate of the PYY gene and hence should be called
PYYb. The NPYa and NPYb genes in Takifugu rubripes are predominantly expressed
in brain, as detected by RT-PCR, whereas PYYa and PYYb are expressed in several
organs including brain, intestine and gonads. Thus, also the resemblance in
expression pattern supports the fish gene duplication scenario. Our study shows
that when sequence comparisons give ambiguous results, chromosomal location can
serve as a useful criterion to identify orthologs. This strategy may help to
resolve relationships in several families of short peptides.
Quote:
The Origins
of Novel Protein Interactions during Animal Opsin Evolution.
Plachetzki DC, Degnan
BM, Oakley TH.
Ecology, Evolution and
Marine Biology, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara,
California, United States of America.
BACKGROUND: Biologists
are gaining an increased understanding of the genetic bases of phenotypic
change during evolution. Nevertheless, the origins of phenotypes mediated by
novel protein-protein interactions remain largely undocumented.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Here we analyze the evolution of opsin visual
pigment proteins from the genomes of early branching animals, including a new
class of opsins from Cnidaria. We combine these data with existing knowledge of
the molecular basis of opsin function in a rigorous phylogenetic framework. We
identify adaptive amino acid substitutions in duplicated opsin genes that
correlate with a diversification of physiological pathways mediated by
different protein-protein interactions. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study
documents how gene duplication events early in the history of animals followed
by adaptive structural mutations increased organismal complexity by adding
novel protein-protein interactions that underlie different physiological
pathways. These pathways are central to vision and other photo-reactive
phenotypes in most extant animals. Similar evolutionary processes may have been
at work in generating other metazoan sensory systems and other physiological
processes mediated by signal transduction.
Quote:
Gene
duplication and adaptive evolution of digestive proteases in Drosophila
arizonae female reproductive tracts.
Kelleher
ES, Swanson WJ, Markow TA.
Department
of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
It frequently has been
postulated that intersexual coevolution between the male ejaculate and the
female reproductive tract is a driving force in the rapid evolution of
reproductive proteins. The dearth of research on female tracts, however,
presents a major obstacle to empirical tests of this hypothesis. Here, we
employ a comparative EST approach to identify 241 candidate female reproductive
proteins in Drosophila arizonae, a repleta group species in which physiological
ejaculate-female coevolution has been documented. Thirty-one of these proteins
exhibit elevated amino acid substitution rates, making them candidates for
molecular coevolution with the male ejaculate. Strikingly, we also discovered
12 unique digestive proteases whose expression is specific to the D. arizonae
lower female reproductive tract. These enzymes belong to classes most commonly
found in the gastrointestinal tracts of a diverse array of organisms. We show
that these proteases are associated with recent, lineage-specific gene duplications
in the Drosophila repleta species group, and exhibit strong signatures of
positive selection. Observation of adaptive evolution in several female
reproductive tract proteins indicates they are active players in the evolution
of reproductive tract interactions. Additionally, pervasive gene duplication,
adaptive evolution, and rapid acquisition of a novel digestive function by the
female reproductive tract points to a novel coevolutionary mechanism of
ejaculate-female interaction.
Quote:
RNASE1, a gene for a
pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies
mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of
the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Quote:
Gene
duplication and the evolution of vertebrate skeletal mineralization.
Department
of Anthropology,
The mineralized
skeleton is a critical innovation that evolved early in vertebrate history. The
tissues found in dermal skeletons of ancient vertebrates are similar to the
dental tissues of modern vertebrates; both consist of a highly mineralized
surface hard tissue, enamel or enameloid, more resilient body dentin, and basal
bone. Many proteins regulating mineralization of these tissues are
evolutionarily related and form the secretory calcium-binding phosphoprotein
(SCPP) family. We hypothesize here the duplication histories of SCPP genes and
their common ancestors, SPARC and SPARCL1. At around the same time that
Paleozoic jawless vertebrates first evolved
mineralized skeleton, SPARCL1 arose from SPARC by whole genome duplication.
Then both before and after the split of ray-finned fish and lobe-finned fish,
tandem gene duplication created two types of SCPP genes, each residing on the
opposite side of SPARCL1. One type was subsequently used in surface tissue and
the other in body tissue. In tetrapods, these two types of SCPP genes were
separated by intrachromosomal rearrangement. While new SCPP genes arose by
duplication, some old genes were eliminated from the genome. As a consequence,
phenogenetic drift occurred: while mineralized skeleton is maintained by
natural selection, the underlying genetic basis has changed. Copyright 2007 S.
Karger AG,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
Quote:
Claim CB101.2:
Mutations only vary
traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new.
Source:
Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society.
1985. Life--How Did It Get Here?
Morris, Henry M. 1985.
Scientific Creationism.
Response:
1. Variation of traits
is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The
accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.
2. Documentation of
mutations producing new features includes the following:
* the
ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.;
Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation
in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973;
Hansche 1975);
* the
ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel
1980);
* evolution
of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al.
1998);
* modification
of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution
in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon
sugars (Hartley 1984);
There is evidence for
mutations producing other novel proteins:
* Proteins in the
histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold
repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of
genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
Laboratory experiments
with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often
begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but
a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then
allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)
3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that
matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact
that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including
cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may
have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were,
especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from
a single pair.
Gene duplication is
pretty much at the core of evolutionary genetics. It's not in dispute. You're
really at the point arguing along the lines that fusion is not taking place at
the core of the sun to produce fire. Sorry, man, it's increasingly more
difficult to hammer any of this to match a myth about a bronze
age sky god, anymore so than Rteacher can hammer it to support his giant
blue baby TIE fighter myth.
So,
back to the terribly difficult concept that small changes lead to eventual big
changes. The math is rather
simple. 1+1+1+1+1... The inference is rather simple. Now would you like to show
me where the inference breaks down? Hmmmm?
(answered!)
Junior wrote:
It takes only a few generations
of isolated inbreeding for people to form what can be regarded as a new
"race" with particular features.
Perhaps you'd like to
define race and then demonstrate how this claim fits that definition? But you
won't.
Junior wrote:
A race is a separate
variety within a species, showing consistent differences in appearance, as a
result of a period of geographical isolation.I think even you can see the
difference between eskimos and folks from the
Junior wrote:
The harmful mutations
accumulate.
Claim? Evidence?
Junior the cited:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n4/full/6801042a.html
Response:
You will notice that
paper is talking about one case:
"Breed almost any
organism under conditions where it is [b]forced to accumulate random mutations[/b]
, its fitness will
invariably decay."
In other words, you're
inducing random mutation but no selective pressure on the population. We should
have no viable yeast if this were a universal case.
And in typical style,
you're only citing a paper that argues against your case:
Quote:
For example, it
suggests that very small populations, which tend to accumulate harmful
mutations, will be protected from the endless accumulation of more and more
harmful mutations by an increasing rate of beneficial mutation.
Junior wrote:
You're assuming that
the animals on the ark had as limited a genetic range as some species do now.
You also forgot that not all animals were in 2's, some
were ordered to be preserved in specifically higher numbers.
What would we expect
the genome of the original copies to look like? What would they have in their
genome that would help them avoid fatal bottlenecks? Given we can trace the
evolution of genes back millions of years, what should we see if this claim
were correct? Because when we trace the evolution of genomes we see increases
in information, gene duplications, duplications of chromosomes, and
duplications of whole genomes (diploid, hexaploid, etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
So. Claim. Evidence?
Junior wrote:
You're also ignoring
the fact that foxes, coyotes, jackals and other wild canines are prone to
diseases as well. So even if the fitness requirements are entirly from nature,
the species are still prone to disease. Everything is. its
a fallen creation remember.
So what? How do you
establish being prone to disease is a result of being "fallen" and
not the evolution of bacteria and viruses to populate new niches?
Junior wrote:
The radiometric is
faulty because they are assuming everything happened previously at the exact
same rate it does now.
The assumption of a
constant, slow decay process is wrong. There is now powerful confirmatory
evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed
been the case.
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf
How to break it to you..hmm.how about.."everything
you know is wrong?". Don't worry I'm sure they'd
still have you back at the hippy commune.
Me:
Sorry, Junior, your PDF isn't exactly evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Zircons_retain_too_much_helium_for_an_old_earth
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/rate/index.html
Anyway this RATE canard was advanced by Meegook yarans ago. You guys just keep digging up the same old tired debunked fairy tales.
So what problems do you have with the pages above? If you can't answer, you still need to establish the dozen radiometric dating methods are all wrong.
Anything else is just a claim. Evidence?
Junior wrote:
Mutations are
overwhelmingly deleterious abnormal mistakes, and those that aren't are still
debatable.
There is no debate in
science about positive mutations. Unless I'm missing
something. Could you direct me to where there is scientific debate about
the existence of positive mutations?
[/quote]
(Regarding how molecular errors are evidence of evolution.)
Junior wrote:
When you have a vast
amount of genetic material, sure you are bound to find one or two random
similarities.
Ummm did it occur to
you that maybe scientists would have assumed this? It's a little more than a
couple random errors. The fact is there are so many errors,
they cannot be accounted for by mere chance. There's an excellent 5 part series
on at least 5 lines of molecular evidence for evolution (the head of the human
genome project who has gone on record as being a very out christian
says himself there is no question about evolution just from the molecular
evidence itself):
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/03/molecular-evidence-1-protein.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-2-dna-functional.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-3-transposons.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-4-redundant.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-5-endogenous.html
Now if you really want
to argue against the molecular evidence for evolution, you need to pick apart,
for starters, these five web pages, with appropriate scientific evidence. No
hand waving.
[/quote]
(Regarding Tiktaalik as transitional form between fish and amphibians)
Junior wrote:
Once again, you can clearly see tikaalik belongs to the group of
lobe-finned fish.
[quote]http://afarensis.blogsome.com/images/tiktaalik_limb.jpg[/quote]
This graphic you cite, let's actually include the caption:
Unlike other tetrapodomorph fishes (1), Tiktaalik has reduced the unjointed
lepidotrichia, expanded the radials to a proximal, intermediate and distal
series, and established multiple transverse joints in the distal fin. The fin
also retains a mosaic of features seen in basal taxa. The central axis of
enlarged endochondral bones is a pattern found in basal sarcopterygians and
accords with hypotheses that a primitive fin axis is homologous to autopodial
bones of the tetrapod limb. In some features, Tiktaalik is similar to
rhizodontids such as Sauripterus. These similarities, which are probably
homoplastic, include the shape and number of radial articulations on the
ulnare, the presence of extensive and branched endochondral radials, and the
retention of unjointed lepidotrichia. Figures redrawn and
modified from Glyptolepis, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Acanthostega and
Tulerpeton.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/fig_tab/nature04637_F4.html
What's funny is that graphic comes from this Nature article:
"The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod
limb"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html
But more about that later. Still, thanks
again for scoring on your own goal, citing a figure from a Nature paper that argues
exactly the opposite.
[quote="Junior"]
Once again, you can clearly see tikaalik belongs to the group of
lobe-finned fish.[/quote]
Again, you need to read what I cited. Here let me repeat it:
[quote]Just like a fish it has scales on its back,
and fins, you can see the fin webbing here. Yet when we look at the head, you
see something very different, you see a very amphibian
like thing, with a flat head, with eyes on top. It gets even better when we
take the fin apart, when we look inside the fin, as in this cast here. What
you'll see is bones that compare to our shoulder, elbow, even parts of wrist. Bone for bone. So you have a fish, at just the right time,
in the history of life, that has characteristics of
amphibians. And primitive fish. It's a mix.[/quote]
So yes. If you look in one place, it's very fish like.
If you look in another place it's got amphibian characteristics. It's a mix.
This is the very definition of a transitional fossil. Sorry it's not a
crockoduck or bacteria spouting a horn or whatever strawman you like to invoke.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html
http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/04/tiktaalik-rosae.html
Let's start with Nature. Heard of this journal? Hmmmm?
[quote]Here we report the discovery of a
well-preserved species of fossil sarcopterygian fish from the Late Devonian of
Arctic Canada that represents an intermediate between fish with fins and
tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order
important tetrapod characters arose. Although the body scales, fin rays, lower
jaw and palate are comparable to those in more primitive sarcopterygians, the
new species also has a shortened skull roof, a modified ear region, a mobile
neck, a functional wrist joint, and other features that presage tetrapod
conditions. The morphological features and geological setting of this new
animal are suggestive of life in shallow-water, marginal and subaerial habitats.[/quote]
[quote]The pectoral fin of
Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb.
Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, The
Wrists, ankles and digits distinguish tetrapod limbs from fins, but direct
evidence on the origin of these features has been unavailable. Here we describe
the pectoral appendage of a member of the sister group of tetrapods, Tiktaalik
roseae, which is morphologically and functionally transitional between a fin
and a limb. The expanded array of distal endochondral bones and synovial joints
in the fin of Tiktaalik is similar to the distal limb pattern of basal
tetrapods. The fin of Tiktaalik was capable of a range of postures, including a
limb-like substrate-supported stance in which the shoulder and elbow were
flexed and the distal skeleton extended. The origin of limbs probably involved
the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of
fish such as Tiktaalik.[/quote]
[quote]That trial was a silly circus that cannot
compare to the measured debate away from the stand undertaken by many people in
other forums.[/quote]
Silly circus because you lost. Badly. Claim. How do you back that claim? And yes, the
scientific debate is really not in the courts. The real debate is in the
literature. Another place creationists don't venture
their "evidence" either. My point is courts and the scientific literature are both similar in that they're venues where
fact and logic rule the day. While creationists don't venture into the peer
reviewed literature debate, they have been known to show up in courts. And when
they do, they don't actually bring their evidence. Why?
[/quote]
(regarding science being some cabal of lies)
Junior wrote:
[quote]And DPRK is a peoples
paradise in the eyes of Kim Jong ils cabinet. [/quote]
Back to this silly analogy? No comment on why it's a faulty analogy? Simply restating a silly claim. Again let's come back to M v
A and what it finds about science:
[quote]The scientific community consists of
individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently
in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their
work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The
journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not
one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the
creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's
witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded"
on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the
creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for
which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific
community are resistant to new ideas. [b]It is, however, inconceivable that
such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of
science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.[/b][/quote]
Now, if you think you can make a better case than top notch lawyers trying
to argue your crap in a landmark court case, well, I'd like to see you try.
Simply restating a claim isn't even trying. It's grade school stuff. But for a
guy who tries to pass off the words of others as his, no surprise. You're a fly
weight.
And let me also highlight this finding:
[b]Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community
was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained
the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness
produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused.[/b]
* * *
[And Junior scores on his own goal, a great example where science doesn't
just bury data. It's right here folks:]
Junior wrote:
Mutations conspire to decrease fitness
“The Sanjuán et al. and Bonhoeffer et al. studies show that the pattern of
epistasis in RNA viruses is not compatible with current genetic theories of
sexual reproduction and recombination, which assume that mutations affecting
fitness exhibit negative epistasis”.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1104.htm#darwin487
What do you believe this research demonstrates?
First, I think you don't understand "fitness" in the genetic
sense (as evidenced by your quip about dogs being bred to outrun bullets or
whatever).
Fitness in a genetic sense is merely the amount of your genetic material
that's made it into the population. So, I can run faster than Bill Gates and I
can lift more weight than Bill Gates. But Bill Gates has reproduced. He is by
definition more fit.
The hypothesis (mutational deterministic hypothesis) about why sex evolved
was it took low level bad mutations, combined them,
made a pronounced effect in an individual, killing him solid dead before he can
breed, and therefore removing minor negative mutations from the population.
This research indicates sex might not be a method by which negative mutations
are selected out of the population. Hence, why then did sex evolve? Oh well.
That is not evidence there is no mechanism for removing bad mutations or in
your hand waving fashion all mutations are loss. Gosh, there must be other
methods for removing negative mutations from the population.
What is important to note here is the paper you cite is a perfect example
of what real scientists do and oddly contrary to your DPRK claim. Another score on your own goal, fool. This experiment tested
MDH and found the results did not support the hypothesis. See. Hypothesis testing. Any of your creationist testing flood
geology or super dna? Mmmmmmm?
And wow. The results did not support a pretty nifty hypothesis about the
evolution of sex. Now in your DPRK model, such evidence would get buried no?
Gosh, sure wouldn't the hell get published in Nature. Oh but wait. It was!
Gasp. How do you explain this? You were trying to explain away the missing New
Scientist articles as a result of the vast conspiracy ("but good luck
finding the links, because any article that can be used in support of
creationism, when accidentally printed in the mass media, is quickly filed away
and all traces removed, "). And yet this one slips through into the
journal Nature? Odd.
Now, let's come back to fitness. So a population that's getting along
nicely in a warm food rich environment with little selection pressure (other
than mate selection) is going to experience some decline in fitness. No
mystery. You yourself cited an experiment where organisms were allowed to
simply accumulate negative mutations without selection pressure.
But now introduce a disaster into the population. A
famine. A flood! A hotter environment. A colder environment. Some organisms will survive. Although
they were measured as being less fit previously, by virtue of simply surviving,
they are now the ultimate in genetic fitness.
So again, in your words, what do you think the implications of this
experiment are?
[/quote]
Junior wrote:
There are plenty of [b]"experts" with multiple degrees in
palaentology and decades of study as believing evolutionists[/b] who turn round
at the end and admit the evidence points to a creator. [b]Anthony Flew[/b] anyone?
I find it entirely bizarre you advance a claim about paleontologists and
then give us a philosopher as an example of someone with multiple degrees in
paleontology. Did you even check his wiki page to see if he was paleontologist?
[quote]
After the war, Flew achieved a first class degree in Literae Humaniores at
Flew was a Lecturer in Philosophy at Christ Church, Oxford from 1949 to
1950, following which he was a lecturer for four years at the University of
Aberdeen, and a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Keele for twenty
years. Between 1973 and 1983 he was Professor of Philosophy at the
[/quote]
Odd no mention of 'multiple degrees in
palaentology".
How do you actually get multiple degrees in paleontology? I guess you can
get a bachelors and then a masters and then a
doctorate. But that's a pretty weird thing to say. Sounds like you don't know
what you're even talking about. Especially since you claim a philosopher is a
paleontologist.
[/quote]
(the notion that humans and nematodes are 75%
similar in DNA)
[quote] In a survey carried out by the researchers
in
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/darwin.php?did=003 [/quote]
I'm wondering
where you got these article titles? I can find no page,
creationist or evolutionary, that gives the article titles, notably the second
one. Oddly, both titles are grammatically incorrect.
*Nematode worms genetically 75% similar to humans.
New Scientist,
*
New Scientist v.103,
Various different animals? Isn't that a
bit of a tautology? And what's with that comma before was? Various animals
would convey the meaning in a headline. You just made these titles up. Or maybe
they're not titles. Odd the article you cited didn't even mention the title of
the articles. No? Seems basic scholarship.
The second one is of interest because there's a difference in comparing the
DNA and specific proteins. Proteins are NOT DNA. It would be indeed weird if humans were more
similar in DNA to chickens than, say, chimps.
It would not be surprising if you're comparing certain proteins to
certain animals outside of the ape kingdom and finding similarities. Since the
article tells us nothing about what animals were compared, what specific
proteins were compared, and the intent then like your bible, you can pretty
much imagine any old thing. Maybe scientists were interested in knowing what
animals outside of the ape kingdom could make suitable lab animals for certain
drugs based on certain proteins.
For example consider:
[quote]
Multiple Phosphorylation of Chicken Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1 and
Human Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B by Casein Kinase II and p60c-srcin
Vitro*1
Eun Joo Jung, Yoon-Se Kang and Choong Won Kim1 We have cloned a soluble
chicken protein tyrosine phosphatase, named CPTP1, from the cDNA library of
chicken intestine. [b]The CPTP1 showed 92% sequence identity to the
corresponding 321 amino acid residues of human PTP1B (HPTP1B). [/b]CPTP1 lacked
13 amino acids of the N-terminal region compared with HPTP1B, while the
C-terminal 48 amino acid sequence of this protein was distinct from those of
other PTPs.In vitrophosphorylation and phosphoamino acid analysis showed that
both CPTP1 and HPTP1B were phosphorylated on serine and threonine residues near
their N-terminus by casein kinase II (CKII). Furthermore, phosphorylation of
CPTP1 by CKII resulted in an inhibition of its phosphatase activityin vitro.Interestingly, both CPTP1 and HPTP1B were also
tyrosine-phosphorylated near their N-terminus by p60c-src. When
we examined the vanadate effect, in the absence of vanadate, the
tyrosine-phosphorylated CPTP1 by p60c-srcwas autodephosphorylated by its own
phosphatase activity. These results suggest that both CPTP1 and HPTP1B
might play an important role in CKII- and p60c-src-induced signal transduction
cascades.[/quote]
Goodness. Does this mean we can extrapolate humans and chickens are 92%
similar in DNA based on a comparison of these two proteins? No. Sorry.
And how did they compare DNA in 1984? Genetic fingerprinting wasn't
"invented" until 1985. Also weird since one of your links noted in
1996 that yeast was the most complex genome sequenced. Golly. Good to know
yeast is more complex than a chicken and a croc. You can't even get your story
straight, can you? And while the nematode genome was sequenced in 1998, the
human genome (draft form) wasn't until 2000. So odd the 1999
article could make just a definitive comparison to something that did not even
exist.
Anyway, can you show me any evidence the August 1984 study was about
comparing DNA and you're just not lying? Lying is a sin. You know?
And can you find me one non creationist source that cites the 75%
human/nematode match? Your New Scientist link is just a page number. Even a
journal title would help.
Here is the
http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2186.html
Where is the article now? I can't find it.
Also when I search the New Scientist site for any mention of
"nematode" and sort by date:
82.
. . . . .
More comment from
83.
Dial F for Fear
Never have so many people worried so much about so little
Gosh. Nematode gets a mention april 1999 and then
the next mention in June 1999. NO MAY 1999 NEMATODE.
I submit your page is lying. See what happens when you don't have peer
review. Creation science sure is easy when you can just make stuff up and no
one checks.
Of course now that the human genome and the nematode genome are both fully
sequenced, what do we find?
http://genome.wustl.edu/genome.cgi?GENOME=Caenorhabditis%20elegans
[quote]The genome is small compared to humans
(about 30 times smaller), yet it encodes over 22,000 proteins, only slightly
fewer than humans.[b] About 35% of C. elegans genes
are closely related to human genes.[/b][/quote]
Oh dear. Not quite 75% huh? I think your little often repeated page needs
to update its info. Is 35% even troubling? No. All life shares many highly
conserved genes. It's a bag of highly conserved genes. Note as well the
nematode genome is 30 times smaller. It's not like we're saying "oh of the
20,000 human genes and the 20,000 nematode genes, there's 35% similarity."
That would be something.
And remember "closely related to" does not mean identical. These
are called homologues. Why was the nematode high on the list for genome
sequencing? Because it's a very simple form of life with a
nervous system. You'll note we have nervous systems. Our nervous system
came from a simpler nervous system. If the nervous system works, nature is
going to conserve those genes. It's nothing shocking.
[/quote]
Junior claims the human genome has only lost information since "the
fall". But the human genome has gained 689 genes since the human/chimp
split
[url=http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000085]Nope.
Wrong.[/url]
[quote]Along the lineage leading to modern humans
we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees[/quote]
Junior "astutely notes the article uses the word "infer" and
adds:
Inference does not count as proof especially when based on a theoretical
mechanism that has never been shown to exist....
Question, Junior.
What mechanism are you talking about? We've never been able to visit the
center of a star to see if there is fusion going on, but from the kinds of
neutrinos we get from the sun we can certainly infer it. But Junior doesn't
even read science so this analogy means nothing at all to him. So let make this
analogy.
A person is dead. You were the last person to be seen with the person. You
have powder burns on your hands. We can infer you are the killer. Now to counter
inference you need to show why that inference is wrong. So, Junior, examine the
linked paper and point out where the scientists draw incorrect inferences.
[/quote]