PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Vestigal organs:
       evolutionist red herring

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously a violation of the "general law" of entropy.  It couldn't have formed without intelligence.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:35 AM on April 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp & Apoapsis - thank you both for teaching me a little HTML
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:38 AM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ugh, the last real HTML I did was maybe 15 years ago with an early version of Hot Metal Pro.  Now I punch a button on Irfanview and tell it to make me a picture album. :-(


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:53 AM on April 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
For evolution to be consistent it should also predict traits that will BECOME important.

wisp
Hum... I don't see why... Well, actually i don't get exactly what you mean.

Take a flagellum, for example. To get to the point of being useful it would have to acquire many parts that at some point begin to work together. Before all of the parts are available it won't work. So the parts have to accumulate in a non functional form until there is enough of them to function as a flagellum.

timbrx
If evolution is true than these multiple parts "developed" either at the same time and began a new function or a bit at a time until they begin to function.

wisp
Yeah, well, you can forget about "at the same time".
Everything we have is evolvable by baby steps

Big changes have very few chances of success.

Ok. We agree evolution would occur through a progression of baby steps.


timbrx
If a useful system started with useless bits and pieces adding up until they reach some sort of useful "critical mass"...

wisp
There's no such a point. And it's beginning to sound like a strawman.

Not at all. Even your imaginative eye evolution description would have to have the development of certain parts, occurring over long periods of time, that would not be of any use until the structure was complete. Even the subtle beginning, genes making the sensitive skin a little bit more sensitive, would involve thousands or millions of cells going through a series of changes to the genetic instructions.





 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:01 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

But an eye can start out as a small fraction of a single celled organism.

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:35 PM on March 26, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:01 PM on March 26, 2009 :
Even vegetarians need to see with their eyes where the plants are to walk over to them and harvest them. But the eye is oh so complicated and according to you, the eye was a mass of tissue that one day became useful and gave sight. What force,pray tell caused this to happen?


The need for food.  In the case of the single celled Euglana, light, so only a tiny fraction of a cell is needed.




One really cool feature of Euglena and other related organisms, is the presence of a pigmented organelle, or eyespot, that allows the organism to orient toward or away from light. This is a sensible adaptation since these organisms carry out photosynthesis. The image to the left show the eyespot . The eyespot itself is not sufficient to help the organism turn toward light since the cell is transparent. So the outside of the eyespot is covered by a black pigmented area. The Euglena determines which way turn turn by turning to the direction in which the eyespot is receiving the least light. In this direction the pigmented eyespot is most directly shaded by the black pigmented area.  



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:27 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Take a flagellum, for example. To get to the point of being useful it would have to acquire many parts that at some point begin to work together. Before all of the parts are available it won't work. So the parts have to accumulate in a non functional form until there is enough of them to function as a flagellum.

This is not true, organs and structures are always functional.  Many biologists believe that the flagellum evolved from a type 3 secretion system.  this system would have had most of the parts needed for the flagellum to function.  All the proteins required for the flagellum have homologues in the bacteria, all the parts that would be needed to evolve the flagellum are present.  There is no point where any of teh structures would be "non-functinal", so the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:57 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Take a flagellum, for example. To get to the point of being useful it would have to acquire many parts that at some point begin to work together.
No such point. Everything is evolvable by baby steps. Always. If a single case of irreducible complexity existed, the TOE would be in trouble. I don't laugh at creationists for trying the bacterial flagellum. It was a cool attempt. It's really awesome. But when you know the type 3 secretory system (a horrible hypodermic needle), used by nasty bacterial pathogens that infect us with things like  salmonella, i think (i'm posting from my pocket pc, tapping letters, which is not very comfortable, so i won't google it), you just know how it was developed.
But your creationist sources probably don't like to talk about the exquisit complexity of the most harmful bugs, so you probably never heard of it.
Before all of the parts are available it won't work. So the parts have to accumulate in a non functional form until there is enough of them to function as a flagellum.
Simply not true. Such a thing would indeed imply irreducible complexity. But it has been debunked.

Creationists used to talk about the bombardier beetle also. But not anymore. The thing with the bombardier beetle is that if it was irreducibly complex, that would prove that animals did not live in harmony after being created. So the Bible would be wrong no matter what.

What they don't think about (even if they insist with the debunked bacterial flagellum), is why do they have to look that hard to find cases of irreducible complexity. Why isn't EVERYTHING irreducibly complex?
Structures that could be explained by evolution should be rare. A curiosity.

Ok. We agree evolution would occur through a progression of baby steps.
Why yes! Of course!
Well, except for a few cases when old structures find a new function (similar to the original, like tetrachromatic vision, or a different one, which should be slower). But even then the steps are not so big. So yeah, we agree.
Are you planning to use it against punctuated equilibrium?
Even your imaginative eye evolution description would have to have the development of certain parts, occurring over long periods of time, that would not be of any use until the structure was complete.
If that's true (i don't see how, but it could be) then my picture was horribly wrong. So show me, and i'll take it back. Scout's honor!
Even the subtle beginning, genes making the sensitive skin a little bit more sensitive, would involve thousands or millions of cells going through a series of changes to the genetic instructions.
I don't see any relevance, but yeah, that's true. Every cell in the organism would have the mutations. And a bunch of them would carry out the new instructions.
My story was about humans with no eyes. In other beings the story would vary.

Demon38
This is not true, organs and structures are always functional.
Or they used to be. Remember vestigials.
Perhaps you meant while they're evolving. Then yeah, everything that's being developed has to be useful NOW.






-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:29 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:01 PM on April 1, 2009 :

Not at all. Even your imaginative eye evolution description would have to have the development of certain parts, occurring over long periods of time, that would not be of any use until the structure was complete. Even the subtle beginning, genes making the sensitive skin a little bit more sensitive, would involve thousands or millions of cells going through a series of changes to the genetic instructions.


Here's an article for you to read:


Evolution of eyes and photoreceptor cell types


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:53 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The strange thing is that we (creos) are always told how we don't understand how evolution works. I think rather we understand why it doesn't work. I'm not convinced that you evos understand your own theory.

I read orions linked pdf and somewhat understood what they were saying about homology. But they never even tried to explain how any of the optical precursors formed in the first place. How many separate parts of the simplest optical structure must work in harmony? More than one proteins worth?

Wisp showed us another nice picture of a microscopic organism that "sees" light because of it's "eye spot". The problem is that this eye spot is an organelle. As I'm sure you know, an organelle is a very complex structure in and of itself.

You have told me that evolution occurs because of natural selection of a gene mutation. Ok. A gene mutation is a "baby step". A functional organelle has many genes that work together to make an organelle. Back up from any functioning organelle one "mutation" and the organelle doesn't function. You might say, well it functions as something just not a light receptor. Sorry but this doesn't make sense. If it functions, the organism needs it for that function. One more mutation and it looses the use of an organelle for which the entire cell depends. While this new function may seem to be better, the cell would have to develop a whole new way of using it that is different from what it is accustomed to. Maybe in a higher life form but in a single celled organism? No way.

I agree that the TOE is beautiful. Like a novel or a play, it expresses the imaginative genus of people. But in reality it breaks down coming out of the starting block. Abiogenesis is the starting block and it too is broken.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:49 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is that this eye spot is an organelle. As I'm sure you know, an organelle is a very complex structure in and of
itself.


What's the problem?

You have told me that evolution occurs because of natural selection of a gene mutation. Ok. A gene mutation is a "baby step". A functional organelle has many genes that work together to make an organelle. Back up from any functioning organelle one "mutation" and the organelle doesn't function.

Except many mutations can occur simultaneously and be selected for simultaneously.  HOX genes control body plans and a mutation to this gene could radically alter the organism.  We've tried to simplify how evolution works but it 's much more complex than these simple explanations you 've been given.  Do you know what genetic hitchhiking is or how it works?  Multiple mutations can be selected for, so backing up one mutation isn't a valid claim.  
The problem is you still don't understand evolution.  And it's a complex subject.  I'm no expert, I don't understand it all, but I do understand enough to know why it works.  You're trying to disprove it based on a very simple, simple grasp of the theory.  That's why people bet frustrated with you.  And statements like:
"I'm not convinced that you evos understand your own theory."
really piss me off when you clearly don't understand how evolution works.
So no, you don't understand why it doesn't work because it does work, virtually no biologist doubts it, it is a fact.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:31 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:49 PM on April 1, 2009 :
Back up from any functioning organelle one "mutation" and the organelle doesn't function.


Why could it just "not work as well"?


You might say, well it functions as something just not a light receptor. Sorry but this doesn't make sense.


Yes, that doesn't make sense.  The light sensitivity comes first and is used for other purposes first.




Halophilic archae produce retinal containing membrane proteins similar to the mammalian visual pigments. These rhodopsins include energy transducers that use light to drive ion transport, as well as signal transducers that use light to stimulate phototaxis. The rhodopsins are thus light-driven analogues of the chemically-driven energy transducers (membrane ATPases) and signal transducers (hormone receptors) found in mammalian cells. The first rhodopsin to be discovered in a unicellular organism (known therefore as bacteriorhodopsin) is also the most abundant. It undergoes a photocycle in which an ion is released on one side of the membrane and replaced from the other side of the membrane. Thus, light is used to create an electrochemical potential gradient across the membrane that the cell can use to drive other processes. To study bacteriorhodopsin in the native membrane, we employ solid-state NMR methods that achieve the high resolution of solution spectra while preserving the three-dimensional information of powder spectra. The results are interpreted empirically using data from model compounds and theoretically via quantum mechanical calculations. Specifically, we are probing the features of the photocycle intermediates that enforce unidirectional ion transport. Recent results point to the release of photon-induced torsion in the chromophore as responsible for the switch in hydrogen bond connections that prevents ion backflow. Other recent results suggest that bacteriorhodopsin may be an inwardly-driven hydroxyl pump rather than an outwardly-driven proton pump.

If it functions, the organism needs it for that function. One more mutation and it looses the use of an organelle for which the entire cell depends.


If your model is that one gene does one thing, I can see your point.  But a common mutation is gene duplication.  That's one of the reasons that many single celled organisms have larger genomes than humans.  When you have multiple copies of genes doing the same thing, if one changes, so what?  If you really want to demonstrate that you (creos) understand how evolution works, you need to understand this.

While this new function may seem to be better, the cell would have to develop a whole new way of using it that is different from what it is accustomed to. Maybe in a higher life form but in a single celled organism? No way.

I agree that the TOE is beautiful. Like a novel or a play, it expresses the imaginative genus of people. But in reality it breaks down coming out of the starting block. Abiogenesis is the starting block and it too is broken.


Goalpost shifting?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:32 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:32 PM on April 1, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 10:49 PM on April 1, 2009 :
Back up from any functioning organelle one "mutation" and the organelle doesn't function.


Why could it just "not work as well"?


You might say, well it functions as something just not a light receptor. Sorry but this doesn't make sense.


Yes, that doesn't make sense.  The light sensitivity comes first and is used for other purposes first.




Halophilic archae produce retinal containing membrane proteins similar to the mammalian visual pigments. These rhodopsins include energy transducers that use light to drive ion transport, as well as signal transducers that use light to stimulate phototaxis. The rhodopsins are thus light-driven analogues of the chemically-driven energy transducers (membrane ATPases) and signal transducers (hormone receptors) found in mammalian cells. The first rhodopsin to be discovered in a unicellular organism (known therefore as bacteriorhodopsin) is also the most abundant. It undergoes a photocycle in which an ion is released on one side of the membrane and replaced from the other side of the membrane. Thus, light is used to create an electrochemical potential gradient across the membrane that the cell can use to drive other processes. To study bacteriorhodopsin in the native membrane, we employ solid-state NMR methods that achieve the high resolution of solution spectra while preserving the three-dimensional information of powder spectra. The results are interpreted empirically using data from model compounds and theoretically via quantum mechanical calculations. Specifically, we are probing the features of the photocycle intermediates that enforce unidirectional ion transport. Recent results point to the release of photon-induced torsion in the chromophore as responsible for the switch in hydrogen bond connections that prevents ion backflow. Other recent results suggest that bacteriorhodopsin may be an inwardly-driven hydroxyl pump rather than an outwardly-driven proton pump.
http://people.brandeis.edu/~herzfeld/overview.html

If it functions, the organism needs it for that function. One more mutation and it looses the use of an organelle for which the entire cell depends.


If your model is that one gene does one thing, I can see your point.  But a common mutation is gene duplication.  That's one of the reasons that many single celled organisms have larger genomes than humans.  When you have multiple copies of genes doing the same thing, if one changes, so what?  If you really want to demonstrate that you (creos) understand how evolution works, you need to understand this.

While this new function may seem to be better, the cell would have to develop a whole new way of using it that is different from what it is accustomed to. Maybe in a higher life form but in a single celled organism? No way.

I agree that the TOE is beautiful. Like a novel or a play, it expresses the imaginative genus of people. But in reality it breaks down coming out of the starting block. Abiogenesis is the starting block and it too is broken.


Goalpost shifting?




Edit to add reference

Arrrrgh, wrong button

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/1/2009 at 11:35 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:34 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38

Except many mutations can occur simultaneously and be selected for simultaneously.


Except that the probability for two related mutations occurring simultaneously has been calculated as being around 1 in a hundred trillion. But never mind, I'm sure evolution could overcome the odds with no problem.

you don't understand why it doesn't work because it does work, virtually no biologist doubts it, it is a fact.


Sorry but this sounds as if it comes straight out of your 'believer's manual'. We have consensus, we have consensus, halleluljah!

Wisp
If a single case of irreducible complexity existed, the TOE would be in trouble.


But fortunately, evos won't allow for that absurd eventuality so we can all breathe a sigh of relief. They've all been refuted, even the ones we don't know about yet.

Timbrx
The strange thing is that we (creos) are always told how we don't understand how evolution works. I think rather we understand why it doesn't work.


Well said Timbrx. A case in point was the meeting of the evolutionists and the mathematicians at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in 1967 where mathematicians brought up statistical probability or the calculated improbability of evolution. They were rebuffed by the evolutionists mindset that said you've got it all wrong, you have to have worked it out incorrectly because we know that it happened. As Ernst Mayr observed: "Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out alright. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred."

Unfortunately that comfort is just another manifestation of either ideology or ignorance (or both.) Chance assembly is actually a naturalist's way of describing a miracle.

What they don't think about (even if they insist with the debunked bacterial flagellum), is why do they have to look that hard to find cases of irreducible complexity. Why isn't EVERYTHING irreducibly complex?


The bacterial flagellum argument for irreducible complexity has never been debunked -rather it has been pushed aside with some more imaginative just-so stories that insist that it cannot be a case of irreducible complexity for all sorts of imaginative reasons. Probably everything is irreducibly complex but some cases are more obviously so than others which is why they're still out there, unsatisfactorily 'debunked' or not.

Posted by Demon38 at Wed April 1, 2009 - 12:57 PMMany biologists believe that the flagellum evolved from a type 3 secretion system.


With 'believe' being the operative word. You can only 'believe' that if you already 'believe' that evolution happened.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:22 AM on April 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If a single case of irreducible complexity existed, the TOE would be in trouble.
But fortunately, evos won't allow for that absurd eventuality so we can all breathe a sigh of relief. They've all been refuted, even the ones we don't know about yet.
Bla bla bla bla bla.
Lester10
Timbrx
The strange thing is that we (creos) are always told how we don't understand how evolution works. I think rather we understand why it doesn't work.
Well said Timbrx.
Better than anything you can say. But any single one of us knows more abouy science in general (and Evolution in particular) than any single one of you.
A case in point was the meeting of the evolutionists and the mathematicians at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in 1967 where mathematicians brought up statistical probability or the calculated improbability of evolution.
Haha! That guy recanted shamefully. He was pretty dumb for a matematician. And he didn't know about biology or chemistry.

Meetings... Why don't you talk about facts?
They were rebuffed by the evolutionists mindset that said you've got it all wrong, you have to have worked it out incorrectly because we know that it happened. As Ernst Mayr observed: "Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out alright. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred."
Bla bla bla quote quote quote...

I won't even google that. You keep quoting to prove Evolution wrong.

The bacterial flagellum argument for irreducible complexity has never been debunked
Why not? You said it was irreducibly complex, and we found something a little bit simpler that works. As debunked as it gets.
-rather it has been pushed aside with some more imaginative just-so stories that insist that it cannot be a case of irreducible complexity for all sorts of imaginative reasons.
Ok, let's leave any story aside.
We found something a little bit simpler that works!

Let's not say that we know how it happen (even if we pretty much do). Still: We found something a little bit simpler that works!
Probably everything is irreducibly complex
Probably? You should be certain.
but some cases are more obviously so than others
Yeah, like the debunked bacterial flagellum and... And... And...

Oh! You also have the debunked hammerhead shark... And the debunked bombardier beetle (fortunately for you it was debunked, and now you can say it devolved its amazing weapon, otherwise the Bible would be in trouble, since it says that animals lived in harmony).
which is why they're still out there,
The reason is religion-based willful ignorance.
unsatisfactorily 'debunked' or not.
Not.
Not 'unsatisfactorily'.

Demon38:
Many biologists believe that the flagellum evolved from a type 3 secretion system.
With 'believe' being the operative word.
It doesn't matter if we believe it or not. We found something a little bit simpler that works. So you were wrong. But nice try. Really!
You can only 'believe' that if you already 'believe' that evolution happened.
Yeap. What's problem or the relevance? Believing facts is a prerequisite for most smart deductions.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:43 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except that the probability for two related mutations occurring simultaneously has been calculated as being around 1 in a hundred trillion. But never mind, I'm sure evolution could overcome the odds with no problem.

Well, no, since we've directly observed HOX genes where one mutation can have major affects.  The claim that backing out one mutation would cause a structure to fail is meaningless.  HOX genes show us that one mutation here can radically change the body of teh organism.  From here:
HOXgenes
"Homeotic gene: a gene which defines a region or position in the embryo. Mutations in homeotic genes lead to transformations of one structure into another; the classic example is antennapedia, a mutation that turns the antenna of a fly into a leg."
Now where did you get that ridiculous claim that 2 related mutations occur 1 in a trillion times.  Unless you can provide a source, I CLAIM you've just made that up because you really don't understand evolution and biology.

Sorry but this sounds as if it comes straight out of your 'believer's manual'. We have consensus, we have consensus,
halleluljah!


No, it means there's so much evidence to support evolution, from so many different disciplines, that the esperts, the ones who are most familiar with the data all agree that it's a fact.  And you creo's can't seem to explain why evolution has made so many thousands of successful predictions or why evolutoin is so useful in medicine, farming and industry.  So no belief involved, and that's funny coming from someone who believes in a magical skyman.

But fortunately, evos won't allow for that absurd eventuality so we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

It's not the biologists who won't allow for it, it's the evidence.  No irreducibly complex structures have been shown to exist.  but hey, we're open to new evidence, all you have to do is show us some...

A case in point was the meeting of the evolutionists and the mathematicians at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in 1967 where mathematicians brought up statistical probability or the calculated improbability of evolution. They were rebuffed by the evolutionists mindset that said you've got it all wrong, you have to have worked it out incorrectly because we know that it
happened.


You mean the conference where Murray Eden
demonstrated that he could make stuff up with the best of them?  Sorry, you can pretend that the Wistar Institute Symposium meant anything, but don't trot it out here and expect us to take you seriously!  From here:
Wistar
"In particular, Eden argues that given all "polypeptide chains of length 250 [amino acids] or less...There are about 20^250 such words or about 10^325" (p. 7). This number is ripe for quoting, but it does not stand as the odds against life, and even Eden did not even imply such a meaning--to the contrary, he admits that perhaps "functionally useful proteins are very common in this space [of 10^325 arrangements]," and facing tough criticism in a discussion period (where his paper was torn apart, pp. 12-9) he was forced to admit again that perhaps "there are other domains in this tremendous space which are equally likely to be carriers of life" (p. 15). But his main argument is that life is concentrated around a tiny fraction of this possible protein development "space" and we have yet to explain why--although his critics point out why in discussion: once one system involving a score of proteins was selected, none others could compete even if they were to arise, thus explaining why all life has been built on one tiny set of proteins. One thing that even his critics in discussion missed is the fact that his number is wrong: he only calculates the number of those chains that are 250 acids long, but he refers to all those and all smaller chains, and to include all of those he must sum the total combinations for every chain from length 1 to 250. Of course, the number "250" is entirely arbitrary to begin with. He could have picked 100, 400, or 20. He gives no arguments for his choice, and as we have seen, this can have nothing to do with the first life, whose chain-length cannot be known or even guessed at [5].

Among the huge flaws in Eden's paper, pointed out by his critics, is that he somehow calculates, without explanation, that 120 point mutations would require 2,700,000 generations (among other things, he assumes a ridiculously low mutation rate of 1 in 1 million offspring). But in reality, even if only 1 mutation dominates a population every 20 generations, it will only take 2400 generations to complete a 120-point change--and that even assumes only 1 point mutation per generation, yet chromosome mixing and gene-pool variation will naturally produce many at a time, and mix and match as mating proceeds. Moreover, a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations, and will also be subject to further genetic improvements even before it has reached dominance."
Looks like your source didn't get anything right and admitted he was wrong.  Now why in the world would you use this?  It's not correct, it doesn't show that evolution and abiogenesis are improbable and the author admitted this.  Here we see, once again, an example of creationist dishonesty.  You must really be desperate Lester!  Anymore "Lies for Jesus"?

Unfortunately that comfort is just another manifestation of either ideology or ignorance (or both.) Chance assembly is actually a naturalist's way of describing a
miracle.


Evolution (and chemistry and physics) dosn't work by chance, when will you get that through your head?  and you and the creos are the only one talking about miracles...

The bacterial flagellum argument for irreducible complexity has never been debunked -rather it has been pushed aside with some more imaginative just-so stories that insist that it cannot be a case of irreducible complexity for all sorts of imaginative reasons.

No, it HAS been debunked, the flagellum evolved from a type 3 secretion system.  And as far as irreducible complexity goes, one must only show a plausible explanation not necessarily the exact explanation, to debunk it.  If you say there's no way a system could have evovled, all I have to do is show A way it could have evolved, not THE way it did evolve to refute your claim.  the bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex has been completely debunked.

With 'believe' being the operative word. You can only 'believe' that if you already 'believe' that evolution
happened.


Nope wrong again.  With IC bilogixsts only have to show that it could have evolved, not exactly how it evolved to debunk the claim.

Here's what real biologists think of evolution:
Penn.AcademyofScience

"Be it resolved on this 2nd day of April, in the year 2006, the Executive Board of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science passed the following resolution on the teaching of science based evolution in accredited elementary and secondary schools (K-12) in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The theory of evolution is based on sound scientific principles and supported by over 145 years of research in all biological disciplines. It is the cornerstone of biological education around the world.

The scientific evidence and well supported data for evolution, as proposed by Darwin (1859) and refined through the modern synthesis by Dobzhansky, Chetverikov, Fisher, Wright, Simpson, Stebbins, Babcock, Gould, Freeman, Miller, Mayr and others, are overwhelming.

In contrast, there is no scientific evidence or supporting data for the idea of intelligent design. This theological/philosophical concept does not belong in the science curriculum, but perhaps in cultural, philosophical, or theological comparative studies. Accordingly, be it resolved that the Executive Board of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science rejects the idea that intelligent design as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory be taught in science/biology classes in accredited elementary and secondary (K-12) schools across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Be it also resolved, that the Executive Board of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science supports the teaching of evolution, as supported by valid scientific evidence, in science/biology classes in accredited elementary and secondary schools (K-12) across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:00 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:55 PM on March 31, 2009 :
What lester means by "general" entropy is not necessarily a mathematical formula but a general perception based on an observation:  


Would the "general" law of astronomy be that the sun goes around the earth?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:28 AM on April 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

Better than anything you can say. But any single one of us knows more abouy science in general (and Evolution in particular) than any single one of you.


Blablablabla -every one of your replies seems to require that I applaud your superior intelligence Wisp so here I am back again and applauding.

That guy recanted shamefully. He was pretty dumb for a matematician.


Really, so where will I find this recanting?

You said it was irreducibly complex, and we found something a little bit simpler that works. As debunked as it gets.


No because presumably the type 3 secretory system had a function before it got a new function that it was not planning on. That's like having a liver that works and suddenly, it mutates, gets  a new function and we don't need the liver anymore. It's a story pure and simple and in case you haven't noticed there's a difference between the stories we can make up about the past and what actually happened.

We found something a little bit simpler that works!

Let's not say that we know how it happen (even if we pretty much do). Still: We found something a little bit simpler that works!


And my point again. Presumably because you like your story and it sounds simpler (while leaving a whole bunch of loose strings) it then becomes fact. That's not science Wisp -show me your repeatable experiments not your imagination at its wildest.
You say its simpler and it works but you know it actually doesn't work because the experiment still has to be done.In reality, only your imagination is working.

It doesn't matter if we believe it or not. We found something a little bit simpler that works. So you were wrong. But nice try.


You sure are stuck in a rut aren't you Wisp. Do you think with enough repetition you will convince me? No of course you don't care, you just know you're right and that makes all the difference.

Believing facts is a prerequisite for most smart deductions.


Except that you're not believing facts, you're believing imaginings and building your 'facts' on those shifting sands.

Demon38

the classic example is antennapedia, a mutation that turns the antenna of a fly into a leg."


The problem  here is, of course, that you will get a fly leg in place of a fly antenna, so you have rearranged something, not made something new. That is because there is no information for anything new and a mutation can't produce somthing new, only information will get you something new. Mutations mess up what is already in existance and coded for in the genome. Where did the original information for the legs and antennas come from? You assume mutation and selection to be responsible and we do not assume any such miracle of self organization. We are looking at the problem from different angles.

Unless you can provide a source, I CLAIM you've just made that up


A paper I read by Ralph Seelke, a Microbiologist -discussing experimentation on tens of thousands of generations of bacteria and what they actually can and cannot do in terms of evolution.

No, it means there's so much evidence to support evolution, from so many different disciplines, that the esperts, the ones who are most familiar with the data all agree that it's a fact.


There we go -we have consensus, we have consensus! Lets drown the dissenters out with the evolutionists song. That's politics not science. I'd like to see the evidence not hear who agrees with you on the non-evidence.
Remember the sort of evolution you support is about history and imaginings, not experimentation and repitition.

And you creo's can't seem to explain why evolution has made so many thousands of successful predictions or why evolutoin is so useful in medicine, farming and industry.


Genetic variability is useful, genetics in general is useful. Evolution is not and has done precisely nothing for any of the above.
As for predictions. we're still waiting for all the transitionals that should be predicted but are not forthcoming. The handful that exist and are questionable are not proof for evolution. they just raise the question, why are there so few tentative transitionals if evolution really happened? Why are practically all the phyla represented in the Cambrian? Where are the transitionals. Why are there such large and unexplainable gaps that show nothing inbetween. Where are the precambrian creatures that are clearly related to the Cambrian? Where are the precursors to the fish? Why have we so many dinosaurs but nothing to show us what supposedly evolved into the dinosaurs?

Moreover, a beneficial gene can dominate a population faster than 20 generations, and will also be subject to further genetic improvements even before it has reached dominance."


I'd really like to know what experimental evidence led him to that conclusion... Tell me about genetic improvements that have been observed?

Looks like your source didn't get anything right and admitted he was wrong.


Where and when?

Evolution (and chemistry and physics) dosn't work by chance, when will you get that through your head?  and you and the creos are the only one talking about miracles...


No, the things that evolutionists assume came about by chance are the miracles they rely on -like building bridges without an engineer, building micromachinary inside a cell without intelligence is the miracle of evolution. And it all begins with a philisophical assumption.

And as far as irreducible complexity goes, one must only show a plausible explanation not necessarily the exact explanation, to debunk it.


And the problem was that the debunking explanation was only plausible to people who believe in evolution. They need something plausible to overcome the odds against it. But plausible and true are not the same thing.
What happened to the secretory mechanism when the flagellum took over its parts -wasn't it needed anymore? Was it just spare parts hanging around waiting to be co-opted for a purpose? How much of this imaginative scenario can be verified experimentally? Are we to rely on the debunker's imagination?

The theory of evolution is based on sound scientific principles and supported by over 145 years of research in all biological disciplines. It is the cornerstone of biological education around the world.


That is politics not fact. We have a consensus so that's all that matters! Which sound scientific principles is it based on? Where is the confirming experimentation? Why do we have so many  unconfirmable stories forming the backbone of this section of 'science'? Is evolution actually science or wishful thinking?
As for being the cornerstone of biology, everybody knows that it is only needed in the evolution department and is precisely useless in every other department. Find me one doctor that needs evolutionary stories for anything he does and tell me what important evolutionary concepts he could not live without. You might be surprised at how useless it actually is.

Here's what 'real' biologists think of evolution:


And what are real biologists? The sector that agree with you, I suspect.

The scientific evidence and well supported data for evolution, as proposed by Darwin (1859) and refined through the modern synthesis by Dobzhansky, Chetverikov, Fisher, Wright, Simpson, Stebbins, Babcock, Gould, Freeman, Miller, Mayr and others, are overwhelming.


Underwhelming -at best.

In contrast, there is no scientific evidence or supporting data for the idea of intelligent design.


Well nothing that they'd be prepared to admit to.
I wonder why so many people are still objecting? I guess it must be because they are too stupid to understand what their intellectual superiors are saying. This war of fact vs fiction is far from over.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:51 AM on April 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Genetic variability is useful, genetics in general is useful. Evolution is not and has done precisely nothing for any of the above.

I'll get to the rest of your nonsense as soon as I have time but evolution has done a great deal, everything I've claimed and much much more.  We would not be able to feed the world's population without it.  You obviously don't know what your talking about.   From here:
Evolution

"The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application.
Source:
Lindsey, George. 1985. Evolution -- Useful or useless? Impact 148 (Oct.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=252
Wieland, Carl. 1998. Evolution and practical science. Creation 20(4) (Sept.): 4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp
Response:
Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.

This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.


Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.


Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).
Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).
Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).


Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).


The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).


Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.
The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).


Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.


Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.


Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application."

Sources are provided at the bottom of the page.  So go to it.  Tell us why evolution is useless in the face of reality.   So I stand by my claim, the theory of evolution has been enormously helpful due to it's validity.  Until you can tell us why the people who successfully utilize the TOE are wrong, you're nothing more than an uneducated, willfully ignorant religious fanatic who is out of touch with reality.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:05 AM on April 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:51 AM on April 3, 2009 :
Find me one doctor that needs evolutionary stories for anything he does and tell me what important evolutionary concepts he could not live without. You might be surprised at how useless it actually is.


My friend uses common descent to know where to look for homologous genes in other mammalian species.  If it weren't true he'd be searching blind.

If he cures cancer, would you refuse to accept the treatment?





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:31 AM on April 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:49 PM on April 1, 2009 :
I agree that the TOE is beautiful. Like a novel or a play, it expresses the imaginative genus of people. But in reality it breaks down coming out of the starting block. Abiogenesis is the starting block and it too is broken.


If evolution were true, would you lose your faith?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:10 AM on April 3, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Well nothing that they'd be prepared to admit to.
I wonder why so many people are still objecting? I guess it must be because they are too stupid to understand what their intellectual superiors are saying. This war of fact vs fiction is far from over.


And what people are still objecting?  You?  The general fundamentalist Christian right?  You're not finding much in the way of objections from the group that is in position to know best - biologists.  Oh sure, there are a few people with PhD's who support ID and Creationism - like Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Gish, etc.  But I would say that their religious beliefs taint their scientific integrity.  In some cases, such as Wells and one other whose name slips my mind at the moment, they got their advanced degrees for no other reason than to be able to speak from the position of authority - "Oh look, he has a PhD - he must know what he's talking about".  

But in the scientific community flaunting your advanced degree isn't going to impress anyone.  In the scientific community it is the quality of the research you do and the integrity of your ideas that matters.  ID advocates like Behe and Dembski fail at both.  

No, people object to evolution not for rational reasons, but because evolution directly contradicts their religious beliefs.  Beliefs that are out-dated.  Stories that were made up thousands of years ago to try to explain our position in the universe and our origins.  

The Bible's account of our astronomical position began to unravel 500 years ago with Copernicus.  The Good Book's account of our origins began to unravel more than 200 years ago with James Hutton (the father of modern geology) and slightly later with Charles Darwin.

Lester, look back on your posts.  You really don't present anything to your side of the argument except your opinion.  Timbrx too, is in the same boat.  Neither one of you presents any evidence to back up what you say.  Why is that?  

Hmmm... maybe because there is scant evidence out there that supports your claims?  You won't find evidence to support your claims in the scientific journals.  The best you can do is to rehash dishonest garbage from Creationist websites.  

As to Michael Behe's argument that evolution cannot explain complex systems (his irreducible complexity argument), researchers are finding that evolution CAN answer that question too.  


Evolution and Irreducible Complexity Explained

This article appeared in the April 7, 2006 issue of the journal SCIENCE.

Here's an excerpt from the article:
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems -- those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.

"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."


Try this, go to www.sciencemag.org - the website for the journal SCIENCE (which is published by the AAAS).  Do a search on these two words:

evolution - 31,622 articles found

creationism - 338 articles found

But wait... while the majority of the vast number of articles on evolution appear to deal with actual research work, the articles on creationism seem to refer to that subject in discrediting manner.

Hmmm, now why is that?  Do you suppose it might be because most scientists have an unfair bias against Creationism?  Or do you think maybe it just might be because Creationism doesn't have anything to offer in the way of rational, real world practicality and truth

(Edited by orion 4/3/2009 at 11:31 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:20 AM on April 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem  here is, of course, that you will get a fly leg in place of a fly antenna, so you have rearranged something, not made something new. That is because there is no information for anything new and a mutation can't produce somthing new, only information will get you something new. Mutations mess up what is already in existance and coded for in the genome. Where did the original information for the legs and antennas come from? You assume mutation and selection to be responsible and we do not assume any such miracle of self organization. We are looking at the problem from different angles.


NO, the problem here is you don't know what your talking about.  I didn't present HOX genes as an example of new information, I was showing that one mutation can radically change an organism.  This was in response to Timbrx claim that a structure could not work if mutations add one part at a time.  HOX gene mutations can change multiple parts simultaneously.  It also nicely destroys your claim about the odds of 2 beneficial mutations happening at the same time is a trillion to one (you never did explain to us how those odds were calculated, by the way.)  As for new information, already been observed coming from mutations.  One example, from here:
NewInformation

"If a bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant, it really does contain new information. We know this because researchers have now got to the point where they have read out (sequenced) every last bit of the DNA in some bacteria. This means that it's possible to do before-and-after measurements."

So despite your uninformed claim, "That is because there is no information for anything new and a mutation can't produce somthing new, only information will get you something new."  We directly observe, as the example above shows, new information being formed by mutations.  

A paper I read by Ralph Seelke, a Microbiologist -discussing experimentation on tens of thousands of generations of bacteria and what they actually can and cannot do in terms of evolution.

Give us the paper name and where we can read it for ourselves or it's worthless.  I can just as easily make up a claim that I read a paper by Dr. johnson where he disproved God.  Your claim carries just as much validity as mine, in other words, it's worthless.

There we go -we have consensus, we have consensus! Lets drown the dissenters out with the evolutionists song. That's politics not science. I'd like to see the evidence not hear who agrees with you on the non-evidence.
Remember the sort of evolution you support is about history and imaginings, not experimentation and repitition.


And what's wrong with a consensus by the experts based on the evidence?  Astronomers have reached a consensus on the heliocentric theory, do you doubt that?  Biologists have also reached a consensus on the gern theory of disease, do you doubt that?  If you have to have surgery, do you scream consensus! consensus!  when the doctors consult and agree on the best treatment?  Yeah, consensus baded on evidence isn't a bad thing in science, quite the contrary, it shows just how well supported, how valid, a theory is.  Despite your attempt to confuse the issue, consensus of biologists based on the evidence is that the theory of evolution is valid.  About 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept the theory of evoution.  You'd do well to learn how science works and stop trying to pass off it's strengths for reasons to doubt it.
As to experimentation and repitition here's one example from here:
Experiment

" I am using laboratory evolution experiments of bacteriophage (bacterial viruses) to address the following questions:
Does adaptation occur by large or small steps?
Are certain genotypes better able to adapt than others?
Can we identify factors that shape the nature of interactions between mutations?
Bacteriophage serve as particularly suitable systems for addressing the genetics of adaptation because they offer the opportunity to observe events on an evolutionary timescale within weeks or even days.  For example, we can watch evolution of the bacteriophage phi-6 in action.  The following pictures were taken at different timepoints during the evolution of a low fitness phage genotype toward an adaptive optimum  What you're seeing is a pale gray background that is the bacterial lawn and dark circles where phage have landed, replicated, and killed bacteria to make cleared circles that we call plaques.  It is easy to monitor adaptation in phi6 because plaque size is a strong correlate of fitness (i.e. relative growth rate).  As beneficial mutations appear and become common in adapting populations, fitness improves and plaque size increases."

That took me all of 3 minutes to find.  Of course you're not going to know about the 100s of thousands of experiments on the theory of evolution if you refuse to look.  That seems to be your major research method, make up some silly conclusion based on your imagination and resfuse to look at the real world evidence that completely refutes your claim.

As for predictions. we're still waiting for all the transitionals that should be predicted but are not forthcoming.

Thousands of clearly transitional fossils have been found, so much that no reasonable person can doubt evolution.  And more are found every single day.  And even one transitional fossil destroys the creationist claim that evolution doesn't happen.  If you want to disprove evolution, take a look at the reptile to mammal transiton series of fossils and explain it to us without evolution.  Lester, when we present specific facts to you, you just can't explain them!

Why have we so many dinosaurs but nothing to show us what supposedly evolved into the dinosaurs?

Archyopteryx, all modrn birds (which are dinosaurs, by the way) what more do you want?  And how do you explain the evidence we already have?  You can't period.

Where and when?

Where and when your source got it wrong and admitted so?  Can't you even read?!?!  From the source I quoted above and posted above:

"In particular, Eden argues that given all "polypeptide chains of length 250 [amino acids] or less...There are about 20^250 such words or about 10^325" (p. 7). This number is ripe for quoting, but it does not stand as the odds against life, and even Eden did not even imply such a meaning--to the contrary, he admits that perhaps "functionally useful proteins are very common in this space [of 10^325 arrangements]," and facing tough criticism in a discussion period (where his paper was torn apart, pp. 12-9) he was forced to admit again that perhaps "there are other domains in this tremendous space which are equally likely to be carriers of life" (p. 15). "

Do you see where he admits he was wrong or do I have to spell that out for you?  Here. I'll do it anyway:
and facing tough criticism in a discussion period (where his paper was torn apart, pp. 12-9) he was forced to admit again that perhaps "there are other domains in this tremendous space which are equally likely to be carriers of life"

I'd really like to know what experimental evidence led him to that conclusion... Tell me about genetic improvements that have been observed?

I showed you the one in the experiment above, how about a source with numerous examples:
GeneticImprovements
Sot there's plenty of experimental evidence of genetic improvements.

No, the things that evolutionists assume came about by chance

What don't you understand, biologist (and chemists, and physicists) don't assume ANYTHING came about by chance!

And it all begins with a philisophical assumption.

No philisophical assumption, just evidence, which you won't look at.

And the problem was that the debunking explanation was only plausible to people who believe in evolution.

Nope, IC says there's no way to form an irreducibly complex system, structure or organ.
All IC systems have been debunked because biologists have shown that there IS a way to form them.  Show us one, just one, Un debunked IC system, too bad you can't do it.

What happened to the secretory mechanism when the flagellum took over its parts -wasn't it needed anymore?

Nope, it wasn't needed any more, more bacteria survived with the mobility granted them by the flagellum.

Was it just spare parts hanging around waiting to be co-opted for a purpose?

Nope it was used for another purpose.

How much of this imaginative scenario can be verified experimentally? Are we to rely on the debunker's imagination?

No imagination needed, just an undrstanding of biology and the facts that already exit.

That is politics not fact.

No that is facts not politics.  Creationism relies on politics and people being willfully ignorant and lazy.  Look at you, you make half assed statements without even a basic understanding of evolution and think you're right!

And what are real biologists? The sector that agree with you, I suspect.

And that's 99.9% of the worlds biologists taht agree with me.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:19 PM on April 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excellent post, Demon!
I didn't have the energy to reply to all that from my pocket PC (my internet connection is down and i'm picking someone's wi fi).

Nothing new... A head with legs IS new. Not useful under most circumstances, but definitely new.

If you want new AND useful, you have nylon digesting bacteria..
Demon
Where and when your source got it wrong and admitted so?  Can't you even read?!?!
Nopes. Lester doesn't read long posts.

Skepticus says that there are lots of people reading forums that don't post. So your remarkable replies are still useful (it's not like you expected for Lester to learn anything anyway, right?).

- - -
EDIT
- - -
Wait...
Is the type 3 secretory system irreducibly complex too?
It's simpler than the bacterial flagellum, so i guess that would be yes...

Did God create it like that, or did it "devolve"?

Can you devolve such an eficiency?

Why isn't it used as an example of irreducible complexity?

Will anyone respond to this?


(Edited by wisp 4/4/2009 at 07:24 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:18 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:51 AM on April 3, 2009 :

No because presumably the type 3 secretory system had a function before it got a new function that it was not planning on. That's like having a liver that works and suddenly, it mutates, gets  a new function and we don't need the liver anymore. It's a story pure and simple and in case you haven't noticed there's a difference between the stories we can make up about the past and what actually happened.


And the problem was that the debunking explanation was only plausible to people who believe in evolution. They need something plausible to overcome the odds against it. But plausible and true are not the same thing.
What happened to the secretory mechanism when the flagellum took over its parts -wasn't it needed anymore? Was it just spare parts hanging around waiting to be co-opted for a purpose? How much of this imaginative scenario can be verified experimentally? Are we to rely on the debunker's imagination?


This argument may be satisfying to you, but even Behe couldn't pull it off in a court of law, let alone among scientists.

From the Kitzmiller decision, pages 73-75:
We initially note that irreducible complexity as defined by Professor Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box and subsequently modified in his 2001 article entitled “Reply to My Critics,” appears as follows:

   By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional . . . Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on. P-647 at 39; P-718 at 694.

Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” Id. In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;”however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect. Id.; 22:61-65 (Behe).

In addition to Professor Behe’s admitted failure to properly address the very phenomenon that irreducible complexity purports to place at issue, natural selection, Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. (19:88-95 (Behe)).

As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution.
(3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the

subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function (16:146-48 (Padian)). For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. (17:6-17 (Padian)). By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.


(Edited by Apoapsis 4/4/2009 at 11:27 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:23 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Take a flagellum, for example. To get to the point of being useful it would have to acquire many parts that at some point begin to work together. Before all of the parts are available it won't work. So the parts have to accumulate in a non functional form until there is enough of them to function as a flagellum.


This indicates a rather idiosyncratic understanding of how evolution operates.  That is, it seems to indicate that the flagellum was the goal.  Matzke (2003, 2006) has done some very nice work on flagellar evolution and points out the fact that most of 'the' bacterial flagellum consists of 'parts' that have homologs that perform other tasks.  Thus, those parts did perform other tasks before some were coopted to produce movement via the flagellum.

Further, there isno reason to assume that all parts myust be present for the flagellum to function, especially since there IS NO "the" flagellum - there are several different 'versions' and they all seem to work well enough.


In the end, the anti-evolution arguments involving flagella are essentially strawman arguments.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:04 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 3:29 PM on March 23, 2009 :
Of the nearly 180 structures previously identified as vestigial in humans nearly all have been found to have some use. Some are even very highly developed and specialized.


This sounds very familiar - is this from Bergman and Howe's book?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:07 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:43 PM on March 23, 2009 :

Because they provide attachment points for muscles, primarily for muscles used in reproduction. Same as for the human tail bone.

So, is something as mundane as an attachment point for muscles sufficient to produce a "function" for a structure?

If so, then the bones you mention are superfluous, for there are many muscles that do not attach to bone at all.  In fact, there is a structure very close to the tailbone to which several muscles and other structures attach (directly and indirectly) - the perineal body.  

Dreaming up and embellishing "functions" (George Howe once told me that his auricularis muscles were nto vestigial because he could contract his to help adjust his glasses...) for structures and declaring them non-vestigial premised on non-biological definitions smacks of desperation.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:13 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:18 AM on March 31, 2009 :
I have 12 alsatian dogs. In the last batch of puppies, one turned up with brown in it instead of solid black -is this evolution then!!?


No, that is variation.

Not really. The way I see it, evolutionists are the ones ignoring stuff. They ignore the general entropy that exists all around us, the law that says everything is falling apart not getting better.


So, when a crystal forms, it is falling apart?
Or have minerals found a way to overcome this 'general law of entropy'?

They ignore the mutational load

What do you mean by 'mutational load'?

and the lack of evidence for the assumption of onward upward evolution.

I should have thought that the fossil record would provide this, but what do I know.  I guess the fossil record is really just a record of either the incompetence or the maliciousness of He that created all those imperfect and now extinct critters.

They ignore the vast gaps in the fossil record as if they were unimportant.

Can you name some of these 'vast gaps' and why they are so important?


They ignore all the many problems with origin of life research (they remain optimistic).

While OOL is interesting, it is not really a part of the ToE.

They ignore or explain away anything that turns up in the wrong place or position in the fossil record.

Such as?

They ignore obvious design when they see it and pretend it does not exist.

Apparently, 'design' is not as obvious to all.  Can you name an example of 'obvious' design and explain why it is so obvious?

They ignore the paucity of transitionals amongst the multibillions of fossils.

You sort of already said that.

As I see it, they are actually in the business of ignoring anything that does not fit with their philosophy.

Judging from what you've written thus far, I'd say you've got a ways to go to make such a case.

We don't know how something happened, so let's find out


But if we find something that does not fit, lets ignore it or explain it away in order to keep our assumptions intact. Evolution is a FACT!!

I would like to see some unambiguous examples of this.
I can provide a rather unambiguous example of creation 'scientists' rejecting objective data analysis results because they did not give them pro-Scripture results.

We don't know how something happened, so God did it.


Actually we know that God exists

I  do not know this.

Prove it.

Creationists don't assume that non-coding DNA is evolutionary junk so they are more likely to keep looking.

So, was it creationists that discovered function in junkDNA in 1975?  Are you sure that evolutionists always thouht that junkDNA was functionless?

It is a funny thing - I recently challenged a DI fellow who had claimed essentially what you are, and after I presented him with dozens of citations from the literature going back to the 1970s showing that, in fact, evolutionists had been investigating 'junkDNA' all along he stopped responding to me.  Doubtless, he'll keep spreading his disinformation, and doubtless, anti-evolutionists will continue to believe it.  That is why creationism in its various guises is so successful - people that do not want to accept evolution find comfort in the claims of those who present themselves as authorities who nevertheless either are incompetent or willing to lie through their teeth to prop up their faith.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:27 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:28 AM on March 28, 2009 :

I'll try. The appendix is considered vestigial, right? Because it does not function as fully as a chimps. But what if it does function fully for humans? Just as chimps function fully for chimps? Without a presupposed "common ancestor" how can an appendix be considered a "vestige" of its former self? It can't. Can an appendix that functions like a chimps be bred into humans? Maybe if many generations of humans died of malnutrition before one survived. Hopefully they would live long enough to reproduce in the first place. Can useful eyes be bred into blind tetras? Yes, according to wisp.


The chimp appendix is the same as the human.
And the gorilla.  And the orang...  And all Hominid Primates.

Your argument is moot.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:33 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:42 AM on March 30, 2009 :
Sorry Timbrx, got to jump in here. My personal problem is that there is no evidence to suggest that mutation and natural selection has the ability to craft new body forms even given enough time.

I submit then that you have ignored large swaths of the literature.


The only evidence we have for the effects of mutations is that they are either innocuous and have little to no effect or that they produce deleterious effects. That is why mutations in the human genome is termed "mutational load". Far from producing an improvement in the human genome, mutational changes seem to be driving us in the direction of extinction.

So sayeth Joe Mastropaolo.
Do you know how Dr. Joey came to his conclusions?


Even evolutionists know that this is happening but according to their belief system, there have to be many other 'good' mutations (yet to be demonstrated) occurring that have changed unicellular organisms into men over millions of year.

And according to your belief system, the genome was once "perfect' (or at least 'very good') and because of The Curse placed upon the original humans, we are all suffering the wrath of your vengeful, petty, thug of a deity.
Wonderful.


So is macroevolution fact or fantasy?  



I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'macroevolution'.

My money is on fact, whereas the creation of humans from dirt via Divine breath seems surely fantastic.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:38 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:22 AM on April 2, 2009 :
Demon 38

Except many mutations can occur simultaneously and be selected for simultaneously.


Except that the probability for two related mutations occurring simultaneously has been calculated as being around 1 in a hundred trillion.


Who calculated this - Seelke in his high school-level "research"?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:39 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:51 AM on April 3, 2009 :

Unless you can provide a source, I CLAIM you've just made that up


A paper I read by Ralph Seelke, a Microbiologist -discussing experimentation on tens of thousands of generations of bacteria and what they actually can and cannot do in terms of evolution.


Seelke's website is odd for a scientist - it is overtly religious and his religious material is displayed more prominantly than his 'research.'

His experimental conditions are outlined thusly:


Our model strain for this has been E. coli AB1157, a strain with over ten defects in sugar utilization or amino acid synthesis genes.  My students and I have put AB1157 under a variety of selective conditions, asking if evolution is able to correct these defects.  Our experimental approach is simple: we allow AB1157 to grow under conditions in which mutants that have gained a selective advantage  rapidly dominate a population.


So, he wants to see if evolution can 'correct' defects, and further (not indicated here) if a defect-correction requiring two simultaneous mutations can occur.  If not, why by jove, evolution in it's entirety must be wrong.

But I wonder - how many simultaneous-mutation-requiring traits are there such that this is an evolution stopper?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:01 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:19 PM on April 3, 2009 :A paper I read by Ralph Seelke, a Microbiologist -discussing experimentation on tens of thousands of generations of bacteria and what they actually can and cannot do in terms of evolution.

Give us the paper name and where we can read it for ourselves or it's worthless.  I can just as easily make up a claim that I read a paper by Dr. johnson where he disproved God.  Your claim carries just as much validity as mine, in other words, it's worthless.


I can't find this 'paper', but Seelke does have several powerpoints on the subject on his website - in the religious section, interestingly enough.

I find his claims to be rather trivial and silly, frankly - he has set up a system wherein he needs to see two specific,simultaneous mutations in a specific gene in order to conclude that evolution is possible, and when he does not see exactly what 'has' to happen, he declares victory.

His Website

His latest PPT on the subject
Note - this takes you directly to the PPT file, not a site.

(Edited by derwood 4/8/2009 at 2:11 PM).

(Edited by derwood 4/9/2009 at 09:27 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:10 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(George Howe once told me that his auricularis muscles were nto vestigial because he could contract his to help adjust his glasses...)
Haha! Excellent!

They ignore or explain away anything that turns up in the wrong place or position in the fossil record.
Such as?
Of all the times i've heard that comment, not once had i heard the answer to the logical subsequent question: "Such as?"
One would think they'd have something prepared.
Do they believe we'll think "Oh, my! I better keep myself from asking what he meant, for it must be really good!"?
Can it be just a bluff?

Apparently, 'design' is not as obvious to all.  Can you name an example of 'obvious' design and explain why it is so obvious?
I've heard "The bombardier beelte" for an answer.
What most biblical literalists don't seem to realize is that they lost the train with ID.
They tried to present a hypothesis with longer legs (longer than biblical literalism, which isn't hard at all).
They succeeded. Except if they thought that ID would carry the old crippled BL on its back.

ID explained the bombardier beetle while fucking BL in the ass. For if the bug was designed, then the Bible was wrong saying that animals lived in harmony.
Either that or something worse, like God planning the fall even before making man.

Besides God's only punishments to human kind (at that time) was toiling the field and pain in childbirth. No downward spiral, which is far worse (more so when you notice that the original two can be avoided).

So the appendix is the same in chimps?
That's what i thought. I was almost certain, but didn't feel like searching (i don't find it very interesting, and it didn't really matter much).
Thanks, derwood. I'll submit that you know what you're talking about.

It's good to have you here. I hope you stay around, even if you don't get a lot of replies.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:38 PM on April 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everything is evolvable by baby steps. Always. If a single case of irreducible complexity existed, the TOE would be in trouble.
I'd like to clarify.

If we took a modest version of the 'irreducible complexity' hypothesis (just implying that there are structures that can miss no parts, and nothing about its evolvability), it still wouldn't be a problem for the TOE.

A structure could grow in complexity first, and then get polished down to a point where you can't polish it anymore without taking away its function.

So there's a version of irreducible complexity that doesn't present a problem.

Again, i don't know this. I guess. I don't know if it has been observed. I just find no problem with the possibility.

Perhaps derwood could corroborate.

Edit:
I mean it like some evolutionary scaffolding.
Am i clear enough?
Lester, timbrx, i know you won't "like" the idea. But do you get it?


(Edited by wisp 4/10/2009 at 5:19 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:46 PM on April 9, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is a shame that the scientific creationist wizards are too busy patting each other on the back to revel in their ignorance in this thread.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:37 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood, what would you say about my guesses?

I'd like to know. Especially if i'm wrong.



I'm about to go out with my girl now. Later on i'll make a thread about the evolution of jealousy (filled with my guesses). And about how the Bible legislates over this clearly evolutionary trait.

I hope that they will answer something (hope, not expect).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:49 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:46 PM on April 9, 2009 :

If we took a modest version of the 'irreducible complexity' hypothesis (just implying that there are structures that can miss no parts, and nothing about its evolvability), it still wouldn't be a problem for the TOE.

A structure could grow in complexity first, and then get polished down to a point where you can't polish it anymore without taking away its function.

So there's a version of irreducible complexity that doesn't present a problem.

Again, i don't know this. I guess. I don't know if it has been observed. I just find no problem with the possibility.

Perhaps derwood could corroborate.

Edit:
I mean it like some evolutionary scaffolding.
Am i clear enough?
Lester, timbrx, i know you won't "like" the idea. But do you get it?[/color]

(Edited by wisp 4/10/2009 at 5:19 PM).


I think such a notion has merit.

I think the concept of "irreducible complexity" actually is a tautology anyway.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:12 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 6:38 PM on March 23, 2009 :
If a function is discovered then it is no longer considered vestigial, so if the new supposed function of the appendix pans out all that will happen is the appendix will no longer considered to be vestigial.


As it should be. But why do evolutionists default to "vestigial" when a structures purpose is unknown?

Unfortunately, you are both wrong.

Vestigiality in and of itself does NOT at all imply no function at all.

From the Origin of Species:


From chapter 1:
"Rudimentary organs must be distinguished from those that are nascent; though in some cases the distinction is not easy. The former are either absolutely useless, such as the mammee of male quadrupeds, or the incisor teeth of ruminants which never cut through the gums; or they are of such slight service to their present possessors, that we can hardly suppose that they were developed under the conditions which now exist. Organs in this latter state are not strictly rudimentary, but they are tending in this direction. "

"On the whole, it still seems to me probable that the points [on the helix of the ear] in question are in some cases, both in man and apes, vestiges of a former condition. "

Chapter 6:
"Hence we can see how it is that resemblances in several unimportant structures, in useless and rudimentary organs, or not now functionally active, or in an embryological condition, are by far the most serviceable for classification; for they can hardly be due to adaptations within a late period; and thus they reveal the old lines of descent or of true affinity."



That an organ or structure has A function does not mean it is not vestigial.

That notion is just populist misunderstanding.

By definition vestigial implies evolution. To claim a structure is vestigial because it's purpose is unknown automatically presupposes an ancestor that had a use for said structure. Classic circular reasoning.

As you describe it, yes, but not as the concept is actually applied.  Funny how that seems to work.


For example: "We know that people evolved from lower primates because the appendix is vestigial. We know that the appendix is vestigial because people evolved from lower primates."

Do any evos see a possible flaw in that type of reasoning?

Yes - the flaw is in the caricature of how the concept is employed.  That is, describing it as you did is a strawman argument.

Vestigiality is a byproduct of evolution, not a predicter.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:21 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:29 PM on March 23, 2009 :
apoapsisPlease show us a non-creationist source where this argument is used.

Pick any dictionary. The very idea of a vestigial depends upon evolution. Without evolution the only vestigials would be left overs from the womb such as the belly button.




Merriam Webster:

vestige
One entry found.

   


Main Entry: ves·tige  
Pronunciation: \ˈves-tij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin vestigium footstep, footprint, track, vestige
Date: 15th century
1 a (1): a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something (as an ancient city or a condition or practice) vanished or lost (2): the smallest quantity or trace b: footprint 1
2: a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms


dictionary.com:

ves⋅tige   /ˈvɛstɪdʒ/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [ves-tij]  Show IPA
–noun 1. a mark, trace, or visible evidence of something that is no longer present or in existence: A few columns were the last vestiges of a Greek temple.  
2. a surviving evidence or remainder of some condition, practice, etc.: These superstitions are vestiges of an ancient religion.  
3. a very slight trace or amount of something: Not a vestige remains of the former elegance of the house.  
4. Biology. a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
5. Archaic. a footprint; track.


Hmmm....

Neither one of them present the circular argument you employed.

You lose.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:24 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:47 AM on March 24, 2009 :
Apoapsis, where did you find that dictionary? I've been searching in vain for a scientific dictionary online. Do you know where I can find one of those?


But didn't you claim that any dictionary definition supports your circular reasoning claims?

That implies that you've ALREADY looked up the word (you clearly did not, you just trust your creationist sources - big mistake).


Relating to a body part that has become small and lost its use because of evolutionary change.
The body part changed because of evolution.

Right.


Whales, for example, have small bones located in the muscles of their body walls that are vestigial bones of hips and hind limbs.
The changed body parts demonstrate the whale's evolution.

Right.


Circular reasoning embedded in the definition.


Um, no.

The existence of the vestige is inferred via comparative anatomy.  The vestige in and of itself is only evidence of the existence of the structure in question.

You, like so many of your undereducated brethren, are ignoring the context.

waterboy   The fact is that there is an 'observable' phenomenon of homologous organs

How do you determine that it is a fact that the phenomenon is homologous? It can't be demonstrated or tested. It makes sense only under the presupposition of evolution.

Interesting how that workls - only makes sense under the ASSUMPTIO of evolution - and how did we derive such an assumption?
Just a big guess, right?


Similarity in structure with different degrees of usage is anecdotal evidence, not empirical.

What would have to change in order for it to be considered empirical?

Is there any empirical evidence for Jahweh blowing on dirt to create the first man?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:29 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:33 AM on March 25, 2009 :
"A vermiform appendix is not unique to humans. It is found in all the hominoid apes, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons, and it exists to varying degrees in several species of
New World and Old World monkeys

Varying degrees!! That's exactly what i predicted!!


And I predict that lots of different types of cakes require sugar..
- so they must have a common ancestor?!


How typical of the creationist when their position is demosntrated to be, frankly, idiotic - make a big joke about it and pretend to have made a point....

Pathetic...


. And so they were created with them.


Eviodence for this?


You have to presuppose a common ancestor but what about the common creator? It's like putting sugar in a recipe for a reason.
You're right Timbrx, circular reasoning.


And yet the fact is the the appendix has a non-appendix counterpart - an expanded cecum - in others.  What do possessors fo appendices need that those with expanded cecae do not?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:33 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:25 PM on March 25, 2009 :

TOE has a good explanation for vestigials only if they are indeed vestigial. They can't be vestigial unless they evolved. Without evolution there are no vestigials.

1. Evolution is true
2. Unexplained structures are vestigial
3. Since unexplained structures are vestigial than evolution is true.

Circular reasoning.


I know you people actually seem to think it clever, but simply repeating a strawman argument over and over will not make it true.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:34 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know you people actually seem to think it clever, but simply repeating a strawman argument over and over will not make it
true.


As Timbrx has shown usonce again, most creationists have no idea what circular reasoning is.  It's clear that vestigial structures are evidence for evolution and NOT circular reasoning.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:39 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
But didn't you claim that any dictionary definition supports your circular reasoning claims?

That implies that you've ALREADY looked up the word (you clearly did not, you just trust your creationist sources - big mistake).


Actually I did look it up.
Vestigiality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The human vermiform appendix is a vestigial structure; it no longer retains its original function.

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution.

Vestigiality is one of several lines of evidence for biological evolution.


From biology online:
Vestigial

refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional. Not fully developed in mature animals; rudimentary wings.


derwood
Vestigiality is a byproduct of evolution, not a predicter.


Unless as yet unproven evolution is a false hypothesis, in which case vestigiality is indeed circular reasoning.

Calling people uneducated and idiotic does not a strawman make. I love the way you guys claim "strawman" whenever your arguments fall flat. And now I predict shrill insults and bombastic postulation.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:43 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's not circular at all.

It might sound like it, but it's just the sound.

The direction is just one. Pay attention:
Vestigials defend Evolution. Yes.
Evolution explains vestigials. Yes.

Vestigials and Evolution don't do the same for each other.
If you used the same word, it might be circular.

Let's use something you'll agree upon:
The prophecies announced Jesus.
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.

Do you see any circularity?
There's none.

I really hope you take that statement back.


By the way, you have still made no mention of toe nails and goose bumps. It would be nice.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:44 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I love the way you guys claim "strawman" whenever your arguments fall flat.
We only say "strawman" when what you said is NOT our argument.

You make up some argument, pretend that we made it, debunk it, and claim victory.

If you think i'm wrong about any case, show me. Quote one of our arguments (instead of pretending that someone said such a thing), and if you debunk it we won't say "strawman".
If you debunk the real argument!
Not your cartoonish version of it!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:49 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A strawman can only mean one of two things:
1) You did not understand the real argument.
2) You're being dishonest.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:50 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, here is an example of a strawman argument:

Quote from timbrx at 12:01 PM on April 1, 2009 :
Not at all. Even your imaginative eye evolution description would have to have the development of certain parts, occurring over long periods of time, that would not be of any use until the structure was complete.


The strawman being that a complete eye has to be formed before it is any use.  Nobody has ever said that.  Why do you use it as an argument?  Why do you think a light sensitive protein only has a use as an eye?

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/14/2009 at 10:48 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:44 PM on April 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:55 PM on March 31, 2009 :
I admit to being guilty of nit picking usually as a defense when my argument starts to unravel. I'll try not to.

What lester means by "general" entropy is not necessarily a mathematical formula but a general perception based on an observation:  systems break down. In any imaginable primordial environment environmental stresses would be extreme. As you know, energy often aids in the breakdown of complex systems. In a pristine laboratory environment with conscious effort applied the self ordering of chemicals into life and life into more complex life remains illusive.


"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:14 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.