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
     INformation-gaining mutation

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here we have an example of how an insertion ( a mutation in which a transposon inserts itself into the genome) provides its host with an adaptive advantage:

***
Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene
***

I like this example for a couple of reasons:

1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"
2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype
3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:28 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What, no YEC experts on all things are going to tell me how this doesn't count?

Les?  A-E?  Timmy-poo?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:17 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood - excellent example of a gain in information via mutation.  I know next to nothing about IT, but it has always puzzled me why YEC claim that it proves that there can be no gain in information in DNA through mutation or through replication process.  

I was just reading about polyploidy, the gain of chromosomes - most commonly observed in plants. This is certainly another example of a gain in information, and can result in a new species.  Observed both in the wild and in the lab.

Polyploidy and Evolution
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:54 AM on October 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1.


Well there’s your clue, thanks for that Derwood. You see, it works like this –the resistance was already present and thus the Drosophila survived and reproduced. The problem is that this is not an example of evolution since the mutation already existed. Obviously it blocked the DDT action, which the others were unable to do - but in every case the blocking is due to loss of function or rearrangement of proteins or membranes or overproduction of something already in existence,  which subsequently prevented the action of the pesticide. That is not the new information you require for macroevolution; it is the disturbed or distorted information that carries with it a fitness cost. There is also less genetic variability in the population since you have eliminated the genetic variability present in the population that was wiped out.

Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally.


It spread globally because it survived. It survived because of a mutation or variant allele it already possessed.

1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"


Adaptive but with a fitness cost. No new information –just distortion, deletion or overproduction of old information.

2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype


There is no new phenotype being produced here. That is required for macroevolution.

3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.


We hesitate to call it new information because it is not new information.


Your example demonstrates the sort of advantage that an armless man has when the enemy comes along with handcuffs to capture the opposition. They can’t handcuff him so he has a temporary advantage. Does that mean that no arms is generally an advantageous mutation or deletion?

“Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
– Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65.


 



-------
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: 09:29 AM on October 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:29 AM on October 15, 2009 :
we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1.


Well there’s your clue, thanks for that Derwood. You see, it works like this –the resistance was already present and thus the Drosophila survived and reproduced.

Ummm...

I think you may want to read it again.
The gene that confers resistence confers resistence BECAUSE it is overexpressed due to the information-gaining mutation.


The problem is that this is not an example of evolution since the mutation already existed.


If the mutation already existed then it would not be considered a mutation, now would it?

You need to read more than one sentence at a time:

"Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

The accord transposon inserted into the promoter region of this allele and that insertin causes the overexpression.  Those drosophila without it cannot metabolite DDT and die.

This was not presented as evolution, this was presented as an information-gaining mutation.  That much should have been obvious from the title of the thread.

Obviously it blocked the DDT action, which the others were unable to do - but in every case the blocking is due to loss of function or rearrangement of proteins or membranes or overproduction of something already in existence,  which subsequently prevented the action of the pesticide.


How, exactly, is making more of something a loss?  What rearrangement are you referring to?  Did you read the paper?  Or are you just tossing out anything you can to reject this out of hand?

As I wrote:

1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"
2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype
3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.

Thanks for proving my point.



That is not the new information you require for macroevolution;

I did not say it was.  I presented this as an example of an information-gaining mutation.  A genetic 'mistake' provided a population of drosophila with the ability to metabolize DDT.  A clear adaptive (i.e., beneficial) advantage.  If thsi si NOT an increase in informaiton, then clealry an increase of informaiton is not actually required for adaptive benefits to evolve.

it is the disturbed or distorted information that carries with it a fitness cost.

What is the cost and how did you figure it out?

There is also less genetic variability in the population since you have eliminated the genetic variability present in the population that was wiped out.

So, whern Yahweh killed millions of humans in the flood, what happened to all that variability?
How on earth did we get all the variation we see today from 4 inbreeding pairs?
You CANNOT claim that they possessed all the variability, as you are claiming here that loss of part of a population confers a loss of genetic variability.

Please explain.  

Further, you are conflating a populations genetic variability with what goes on in one genome.  And even further, the loss of those not resistent, i.e., those without the beneficial mutation, apparently did not affect the overall fitness of drosophila.


Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally.


It spread globally because it survived. It survived because of a mutation or variant allele it already possessed.


Right - an information gaining mutation conferred an adaptive, beneficial advantage to the population.

What, exactly, do you think a mutation acts on?  I thought you had a science doctorate, yet here it seems as though you are unaware of basic genetics, something covered in introductory undergraduate biology.


1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"


Adaptive but with a fitness cost.


What fitness cost?  Please show your work and explain how you derived this.


No new information –just distortion, deletion or overproduction of old information.

By definition, the addition of more nucleotides (such as via insertion) adds information.
But I know that creationists like to conflate and redefine definitions as it suits them such that they can make any point they feel the need to - even if the points are mutually exclusive.

But since you are making this argument, why don't you start by defining "information" for us.
Explain how your definition is relevant to the scenario at hand.  Then, with something more than assertions gleaned from your favorite YEC websites and books, EXPLAIN how gaining an adaptive trait is not a gain of information.  

2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype


There is no new phenotype being produced here. That is required for macroevolution.


PHENOTYPE:

phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior (Wiki)


PHENOTYPE:

: the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment (Merriam-Webster.com)

I suggest you brush up on basic biology terminology.

3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.


We hesitate to call it new information because it is not new information.


No, you merely assert it, and concoct idiosyncratic post-hoc definitions to ensure that nothing will ever count as 'new information.'


Your example demonstrates the sort of advantage that an armless man has when the enemy comes along with handcuffs to capture the opposition. They can’t handcuff him so he has a temporary advantage. Does that mean that no arms is generally an advantageous mutation or deletion?


None of that is relevant at all to the example I gave.  

Your responses here come across more like a hackneyed set of all-purpose assertions and dodges rather than an attempt to actually address the issue presented.  There was no deletion, there was no loss of fitness.  
An insertion is not a deletion, an overexpression of a protein is not a loss of anything.



“Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
– Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65.


Yes, the genetic variants probably were.  Where does the variation come from?




 

(Edited by derwood 10/15/2009 at 1:48 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:18 PM on October 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The gene that confers resistence confers resistence BECAUSE it is overexpressed due to the information-gaining mutation.

It is overexpressed due to amplification of a gene or loss of control of regulation of an existing gene. No increase in meaningful genetic information has occurred. That gene was already there.

If the mutation already existed then it would not be considered a mutation, now would it?


The mutation was already there when the pesticide was introduced thus that Drosophila could survive. It did not mutate in order to survive. It conferred survivability by virtue of possessing a gene that was overexpressed for whatever reason. The presence of that mutation and subsequent overexpression of the gene that already existed, allowed it to survive.

This was not presented as evolution, this was presented as an information-gaining mutation.  That much should have been obvious from the title of the thread.


But there is no information gain –just a lack of control of expression of a gene that was already present in the population. The mutation caused that lack of control. That is a breakdown in an originally better system. It just happened to be beneficial in the presence of the pesticide.

How, exactly, is making more of something a loss?  


There is no more information, there is nothing new, there is just a loss of control over production of something that was already in existence. That carries with it a fitness cost and when the pesticide is removed, the original Drosphila without that mutation would be stronger.

So, the genetic makeup conferring resistance is associated with increased survival when the pesticide is present, but decreased survival when it is absent. The same is seen in warfarin resistant rats.

1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"


But it is only beneficial in the presence of the pesticide; overall there is a cost to the organism.

2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype


There are a lot of adaptive abilities displayed by most organisms but that does not imply that the Drosphila will evolve into something other than Drosophila - adaptability aside.

3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.


Mutations are a break down of previously existing information. There is loss of control of expression of something that already existed.
Having additional copies of existing genes or having genes that fail to switch off  is not evidence for evolution because to change molecules into man, evolution needs a mechanism to add new complex functions, not copying existing ones or breaking them (photocopying a chapter of a book or breaking an electric switch does not create new complex functionality.)

What is the cost and how did you figure it out?


Resources required for overexpression of one gene weakens an organism. An example of fitness cost is the warfarin resistant rats mentioned above. In the absence of warfarin, those rats will not be the strongest as they are not as strong generally as the original population of rats.

So, whern Yahweh killed millions of humans in the flood, what happened to all that variability?
How on earth did we get all the variation we see today from 4 inbreeding pairs?
You CANNOT claim that they possessed all the variability, as you are claiming here that loss of part of a population confers a loss of genetic variability.


Look around you. There is huge variability in every kind of animal and in the humans as well. Clearly the original design had huge genetic variability or we would not see it now. If there was a bottleneck at the flood, then variability decreased, but there still is a lot of variability. It works fine for our model as we only claim that thousands of years have passed since that bottleneck.

And even further, the loss of those not resistent, i.e., those without the beneficial mutation, apparently did not affect the overall fitness of drosophila.


Generally it does affect overall fitness. When taken out of the DDT environment, the original Drosophila would be stronger than the resistant ones and would quickly redominate the population in competition with the resistant ones.

By definition, the addition of more nucleotides (such as via insertion) adds information.


Information has purpose – adding a letter to a previously coherent sentence does not make more information; it may not do much to disturb the existing information (ie. you can still understand it/ it can still make a functional protein) but it won’t add to the existing information if the original information had an intelligent source which is what we believe is the case.

I suggest you brush up on basic biology terminology.


Thanks for the advice. I shall get to it immediately.

EXPLAIN how gaining an adaptive trait is not a gain of information.


Having no feet may prevent you getting athlete’s foot but you are not better off generally in comparison to the population at large. That is how adaptive resistance works, there’s a situational advantage but there is also a cost.

There was no deletion, there was no loss of fitness.  


No deletion, fine but I’ll bet there was a loss of fitness. The only way to tell is to put those resistant organisms back with the parent population and see how they compete in a pesticide free environment.

an overexpression of a protein is not a loss of anything.

The overexpression utilizes the organism’s resources. There is a loss of control of that which is no doubt better controlled, except of course in the presence of DDT where it happens to be beneficial.






-------
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: 11:07 AM on October 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:07 AM on October 16, 2009 :
The gene that confers resistence confers resistence BECAUSE it is overexpressed due to the information-gaining mutation.

It is overexpressed due to amplification of a gene or loss of control of regulation of an existing gene. No increase in meaningful genetic information has occurred. That gene was already there.


Repetition does not make something incorrect correct.

Allow me to enumerate the errors in just that response:


It is overexpressed due to amplification of a gene or loss of control of regulation of an existing gene.

No amplification occurred.
The insertion did not produce a loss of control, it allowed for an increase in expression.


No increase in meaningful genetic information has occurred.

Mere assertion.  You've still not defined what you mean by 'information' in this context.  I suspect because you do not know.

That gene was already there


Yes, it was.  Please do not tell us that a PhD-holding science expert actually thinks that an information-increasing MUTATION must produce a NEW gene?

Incredible.

If the mutation already existed then it would not be considered a mutation, now would it?


The mutation was already there when the pesticide was introduced thus that Drosophila could survive. It did not mutate in order to survive.


Had it done so it would not really be an example of Darwinian evolution.  In fact, this  is a pretty good example of Kimura's neutral theory in action  - you know about that, right?  Wherein most mutations are neutral or nearly so but came become beneficial or deleterious if the environment changes?


It conferred survivability by virtue of possessing a gene that was overexpressed for whatever reason.


The reason has been explained to you a couple of times and is outlined even in the abstract.

The presence of that mutation and subsequent overexpression of the gene that already existed, allowed it to survive.

Yes, very good.
Evolution in action.

This was not presented as evolution, this was presented as an information-gaining mutation.  That much should have been obvious from the title of the thread.


But there is no information gain –just a lack of control of expression of a gene that was already present in the population. The mutation caused that lack of control. That is a breakdown in an originally better system. It just happened to be beneficial in the presence of the pesticide.

And the originally 'better' system left millions of Drosophila corpes in its wake, while this 'worse' mutated genome left its possessors alive and well, with no cost.
Your replies seem to consist of assertions and non sequiturs thus far - signs of desperation and an ignorance of the issues.

How, exactly, is making more of something a loss?  


There is no more information, there is nothing new, there is just a loss of control over production of something that was already in existence.

If the change ALLOWS for increased fitness, how is it a loss?

YECs simply try to win by altering definitions as they see fit.


That carries with it a fitness cost and when the pesticide is removed, the original Drosphila without that mutation would be stronger.

They are all DEAD.  
What IS the fitness cost, Mr.Population Genetics?
Tell us all about it and how you determined that there was a cost.
And while you are at it, you'd best straighten the researchers out:

"...resistance to DDT was widespread, as expected, and second, resistance
can persist in laboratory strains in the absence of pesticide selection, which suggests that little or no fitness cost is associated with this mechanism."

And these guys too:

DDT resistance in flies carries no cost

"Mutations that confer pesticide resistance are predicted to carry a cost in the absence of pesticide and consequently not to spread
to fixation [1,2]. However, DDT resistance in Drosophila melanogaster (DDT-R) is approaching fixation globally, long after withdrawl of DDT [3]."

But I am sure you have information that these poor saps are not privy to.

So, the genetic makeup conferring resistance is associated with increased survival when the pesticide is present, but decreased survival when it is absent. The same is seen in warfarin resistant rats.

See above.

1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"


But it is only beneficial in the presence of the pesticide; overall there is a cost to the organism.

Please explain.
Provide your rationale and your evidence.  Mere assertion only suffices in church.

2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype


There are a lot of adaptive abilities displayed by most organisms but that does not imply that the Drosphila will evolve into something other than Drosophila - adaptability aside.

You continue to (purposefully?) conflate issues here.  AGAIN, I did not present this as evolution (even though, in its purest form, it certainly is), I presented it as an information-increasing mutation.  All you have done thus far is repeatedly assert that it is not and tried to tie this to macroevolution.

3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.


Mutations are a break down of previously existing information.

I suggest you hone up on your information theory.

There is loss of control of expression of something that already existed.

You keep writing "loss of control".  Yet this loss of control produced increased fitness at no apparent cost.  Seems like the only way a person could reject this as an increase is on a priori grounds that such things cannot happen.

Having additional copies of existing genes or having genes that fail to switch off  is not evidence for evolution because to change molecules into man, evolution needs a mechanism to add new complex functions, not copying existing ones or breaking them (photocopying a chapter of a book or breaking an electric switch does not create new complex functionality.)

I would have hoped that a PhD in science holding expert would not actually rely on simplistic analogies in this arena, but I have to remember who I am dealing with.

Copying a gene not only does increase information in the Shannon (and perhaps Kologorov) sense, i.e., mathematically, it can and often does alter phenotype (glad to see that y ou have figgered' out what phenotype actually means).  I suggest readinng up on the HOX genes and how duplications and alterations of these genes are implicated in altering body plan.

What is the cost and how did you figure it out?


Resources required for overexpression of one gene weakens an organism.

How much resources are required to produce this protein?
Is the expenditure of additional resources that guarantees survival in a particular environment worth it?

An example of fitness cost is the warfarin resistant rats mentioned above. In the absence of warfarin, those rats will not be the strongest as they are not as strong generally as the original population of rats.

Good for the rats.  We are not talking about them.  You see, in biology, it is at best tenuous to extrapolate what we see in one population to all populations.
What I also see is a general ignorance of the basic tenets of evolution.  Evolution does not postulate that evolution as such produces 'better' creatures who are better adapted to any and all possible environemtns (seems an all-poweful being could have accomplished that, but failed to).  Evolution postulates the production of better adapted creatures to their particular environment via a collection of related mechanisms all boiling down to the creation of raw material - variability - via mutation.

So, whern Yahweh killed millions of humans in the flood, what happened to all that variability?
How on earth did we get all the variation we see today from 4 inbreeding pairs?
You CANNOT claim that they possessed all the variability, as you are claiming here that loss of part of a population confers a loss of genetic variability.


Look around you. There is huge variability in every kind of animal and in the humans as well.

Yes - 6 billion humans possess a huge amount of variablity.  But we are talking 8 people - 4 inbreeding pairs - NOT 6 billion.  Or even a hundred thousand.  EIGHT.


Clearly the original design had huge genetic variability or we would not see it now.

Fallacy of circular argument - you are presuming true that which you seek to support.

What is the EVIDENCE that Jehova produced all the extant variability and how was that housed on 4 inbreeding pairs?
How did the characterisitcs of Bantu tribesmen, Eskimos, Scandinavians, east Asians, Aboriginals, etc. all come from 4 inbreeding pairs in just 4,500 years?  How did the 'correct' groupings of alleles become segregated within these growing populations?
Asserting that it must have been so will not do.


If there was a bottleneck at the flood,

IF???

then variability decreased, but there still is a lot of variability.

Why, I haqveno doubt if you took 4 breeding pairs from Appalachia in just 4,500 years you could get the equivalent of the diversity we see today...


It works fine for our model as we only claim that thousands of years have passed since that bottleneck.

HOW does it work 'fine'?

Please provide the population genetics model that allows for the production of so much diversity in just 4,500 years.

What is very telling about the YEC position is the lack of confidence that the actual 'researchers' have in YEC tenets.  A group of YEC engineers and one geneticist recently produced a new computer program set uo to 'better' model population genetics processes than any other such program.  What is interesting about it is the miniumum population that you can input into the program is 1000.   Why did they not make it handle 8 (or 2)?
Another case I have read of just recently - a creationist claimed that the programs used to study molecular phylogenetics are flawed and their outputs cannot be trusted because the researchers' bias can influence the outcome.  So, a researcher contacted the creationist and offered to send him some sequence data without any identifying features such that the creationist could analyze the data himself without any biases.  Then they couuld compare their outcoomes - if the creationist was right, then the outputs of their analysesshould be quite different .  The creationist BAILED, didn't want any part of it.

It is easy to make confident-sounding proclamations on the internet or to a friendly crowd, but it is apparently not so hard for creationists to actually test their own claims.

Why?

And even further, the loss of those not resistent, i.e., those without the beneficial mutation, apparently did not affect the overall fitness of drosophila.


Generally it does affect overall fitness. When taken out of the DDT environment, the original Drosophila would be stronger than the resistant ones and would quickly redominate the population in competition with the resistant ones.

Inicredible assertion.
What is it based on?  

By definition, the addition of more nucleotides (such as via insertion) adds information.


Information has purpose


Um, no.  See, here you are adding criteria to a term thaty has a specific definition.

This is why I have asked you to define information as used here (and you've yet to do).  According to Shannon's definition, adding digits to a digital system of communication DOES add information, regardless of the 'quality'.


– adding a letter to a previously coherent sentence does not make more information; it may not do much to disturb the existing information (ie. you can still understand it/ it can still make a functional protein) but it won’t add to the existing information if the original information had an intelligent source which is what we believe is the case.

You believe it to be the case but you cannot seem to support this belief with anything more than english language analogies presented as evidence.

Analogies are not evidence.

I suggest you brush up on basic biology terminology.


Thanks for the advice. I shall get to it immediately.

Somehow, I doubt it, but I did notice that your stopped quibbling about how biochemical physiology is not phenotype.

EXPLAIN how gaining an adaptive trait is not a gain of information.


Having no feet may prevent you getting athlete’s foot but you are not better off generally in comparison to the population at large. That is how adaptive resistance works, there’s a situational advantage but there is also a cost.


That has nothing even remotely relevant to defining information or explaining how the acquisition of DDT resistence is not a gain of information.
Againi, analogies are not evidence, and please learn the basic tenets of evolution prior to making usch silly proclamations.

There was no deletion, there was no loss of fitness.  


No deletion, fine but I’ll bet there was a loss of fitness.

So now you are only willing to bet - all along you've confidently proclaimed otherwise.
As I have presented, you appear to have lost that bet.


The only way to tell is to put those resistant organisms back with the parent population and see how they compete in a pesticide free environment.

Already done.  No decline in fitness.  Not that it would matter.


an overexpression of a protein is not a loss of anything.

The overexpression utilizes the organism’s resources.

How much of the flies' resources are being used?
Do you really think that it - whatever it amounts to, you've not even attempted to explain - is sufficient to make them less fit?

There is a loss of control of that which is no doubt better controlled, except of course in the presence of DDT where it happens to be beneficial.

In such an environment, clearly it is a benefit and an increase in information, if the information contained in a genome is in part that which allows the organism to survive in its environment.



(Edited by derwood 10/18/2009 at 7:51 PM).

(Edited by derwood 10/18/2009 at 7:53 PM).

(Edited by derwood 10/18/2009 at 7:54 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:55 AM on October 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No amplification occurred.
The insertion did not produce a loss of control, it allowed for an increase in expression.


Well Derwood, I hate to be the bearer of bad new but our worldviews are in conflict again and that is the cause of our differing opinions.
You see, we say that an intelligent creator (the one you love to hate) made everything perfect in the beginning. You say chance and time brought everything into existence with no plan or forethought (that is what you think, I presume?) So following on that, when a gene no longer does what it was doing properly, it is not considered to be increasing its expression, as you would have it, but rather, IMHO, it is out of control due to loss of control over regulation. The same thing is happening but we interpret it differently due to our a priori presuppositions.

No increase in meaningful genetic information has occurred.


Mere assertion.


And you are merely asserting that a random letter change in a gene adds up to an increase in information. Obviously we have differing opinions on what information is.

Wherein most mutations are neutral or nearly so but came become beneficial or deleterious if the environment changes?


And whereas something can be out of control/ overexpressing with no major effect in one situation, it happens to be beneficial in another situation. It is still a loss of control.
The fact that a gene mutation is situationally beneficial or deleterious does not mean that this organism is ever going to be anything but a fruitfly, does it? They’ve done the experiments over endless generations, it remains a fruitfly, ever a fruitfly and no amount of zapping is ever going to change that. This is in accordance with the predictions of the creation model. In order for your macroevolution to occur, complex information would have to be added to the genome. This is not likely to occur through random mutational errors, common sense alone should tell you that.

And the originally 'better' system left millions of Drosophila corpes in its wake, while this 'worse' mutated genome left its possessors alive and well, with no cost.


How was ‘no cost evaluated? Has enough time passed that that can be determined? Perhaps the cost is small in this particular case. Perhaps you at last have one case where a mutation is beneficial by accident. It can happen by accident, but in comparison with mutations involving survival cost or straight deleterious mutations or neutral mutations, it has extremely low frequency and there is no way of separating good mutations from associated bad ones in a population so overall, statistically, a population can only go down.

resistance can persist in laboratory strains in the absence of pesticide selection, which suggests that little or no fitness cost is associated with this mechanism."  


There you go –they are not too sure. Obviously they expect a fitness cost but maybe they got lucky here. Some lucky soul usually wins the lotto too.

You continue to (purposefully?) conflate issues here.  AGAIN, I did not present this as evolution (even though, in its purest form, it certainly is)


There, you give yourself away. That’s an old tactic of the evolutionist. They show you how a finch’s beak varies and when you admit that it does in fact vary, they tell you that thus you must also believe that a galapogos finch could turn into a galapogos elephant given enough time. Now that’s conflation!

I would have hoped that a PhD in science holding expert would not actually rely on simplistic analogies in this arena


I said I have a doctorate that involved basic training in anatomy, physiology, botany, zoology and various other subjects – that is true. What you make of it is your problem.

Copying a gene not only does increase information in the Shannon (and perhaps Kologorov) sense, i.e., mathematically


Perhaps in the Shannon or Kologorov sense but that does not mean information in the biological sense. Information, in the biological sense, implies intelligence and purpose. Adding a few letters to a well ordered shopping list may increase your information but it is most unlikely to add something real and necessary –that is what is required for biological purposes.

Good for the rats.  We are not talking about them.  


Yes, but I am giving you one of many examples of fitness cost and how situational mutational advantages tend to work.

Evolution postulates the production of better adapted creatures to their particular environment via a collection of related mechanisms all boiling down to the creation of raw material - variability - via mutation.


I know what they postulate. The problem is does it work that way? Does random variability have a hope in hell of creating new and useful information, in sufficient quantity, and in a way that changes are related such that, for example,a liver or a kidney could ‘evolve naturally’ with no plan? It’s a nice story but can it happen?
Variability in the physiology of the fruit fly does not begin to explain the origin of the fruit fly or the origin of anything else for that matter.

I suggest readinng up on the HOX genes and how duplications and alterations of these genes are implicated in altering body plan.



I have read about them and this is what it boils down to for those of us not so swayed by philosophical expectations and faith :
Hox genes act like switches controlling the expression of other genes. If you put a switch on a computer or an iron, you will be able to switch it on or off. That switch does not explain how the computer or the iron got there in the first place nor does it suggest that the computer evolved from the iron. Even in articles attempting to show  Hox changes as a possible path for evolution, they could only come up with an extra functionless pair of wings on flies, or a functionless leg where the antenna should be as their examples of what hox genes can do. If we are to believe that entire new body plans can result from manipulation of hox genes then we are going to need a few good examples otherwise it is best not to put too much faith in it.

Look around you. There is huge variability in every kind of animal and in the humans as well.
Yes - 6 billion humans possess a huge amount of variablity.  But we are talking 8 people - 4 inbreeding pairs - NOT 6 billion.  Or even a hundred thousand.  EIGHT.


Killing off a whole lot of variability does not tell us how much variability was in those that remained. Remember in those early days, the people were allowed to intermarry in their own families, in fact they had to right at the beginning, there was no choice.(Perfect genetic material, no mutations?) Some time after the flood they were instructed not to intermarry so closely any more.(Build up of mutational errors?) That didn’t mean they were treated to a lecture on genetics and mutational load only that “GOD SAID DONT” but that is where obedience to God comes in and also choice. God is like the parent that knows more than we do and if he says DON’T, we are supposed to trust that he has a reason for what he is saying and that that reason is for our own good. He made us, he knows how we function and he said don’t do that because I say so. We’ve all had our parents do the same. Only when we disobey do we find out why we shouldn’t have done what they told us not to. Sometimes the consequences are long term but God knows. He told the Hebrews to remove the boys foreskins on day 8 after birth. It turns out that on day 8, some clotting factor is at its maximum level but he never gave them the clotting cascade lecture just told them what to do and they trusted God and did it.

Your parents probably didn’t trust God and now you don’t –that’s just a simple example of the price of disobedience. As far back as it goes, you are the result of that disobedience. Now, you think God is not real and when Jesus comes back or when you die (whichever comes first), you’re going to be scratching your head saying “What the .…” only it’ll be too late. That’s what I’m here for –to warn you by starting with your irrational beliefs that you share with the other disobedient,’ far too clever for God’ people in the world.

Got to go Derwood, I’m being sidelined here. I’ll be back to finish as soon as I can.  












-------
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: 05:00 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester: "I said I have a doctorate that involved basic training in anatomy, physiology, botany, zoology and various other subjects – that is true. What you make of it is your problem."

Very interesting. Over the summer on another forum I talked with another creationist that claimed to have a degree in science as well. Like you, he just listed off some things that he had to take to get his degree. And like you, he never said what his degree actually was, even after several attempts to get the information. Curious, I have never meet an evolutionist that avoided the question in the same manner. Especially when they freely say that they have a degree in science, in your case a doctorate.

So why is it that creationists have a hard time saying what their degree is in when it involves science? What is the point to just list off some things that your degree involves without saying what the degree is? What did you hope to accomplish by saying that you have a doctorate in a scientific field? Will you reveal what your undergrad degree is in?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:54 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer, I hesitate to give a full explanation because I don’t want anybody to limit me to my profession as I have spent years reading on other topics as well. In fact I read less about my own profession than I do about everybody else’s. By refusing to say what my degree is in, I keep people like Derwood wondering rather than knowing so that they have to stick as close as possible to the truth just in case I know something about the topic that he does not. Evolutionists put great stock in their academic qualifications –since they were apparently not created by God. That becomes their only identity which is why they so often come across condescending and imperious. I’d be more inclined to tell you what my profession is than I would Derwood but since Derwood is in the equation, I say nothing and it will remain that way.

I suspect that somebody like an engineer would be even cagier since he couldn’t list any biological subjects at all –but that wouldn’t mean he would be less competent to discuss it, if it was an interest of his. Areas of competence are so specialized these days that basically everybody is a layman in any but his own particular speciality but we’re pretty much all competent to discuss the content of what each other is saying if we have an interest and a basic knowledge of a topic.
You’ll notice Derwood is, in Derwood’s opinion, always full of his own very special knowledge (much like a Roman Catholic priest with his latin Bible), and nobody is even competent to discuss it with him. We carry on regardless.

Think about it, it really makes no difference to your life – either I talk sense or I don’t and if I don’t you don’t need to listen or to reply          




-------
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: 08:58 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:00 AM on October 19, 2009 :
No amplification occurred.
The insertion did not produce a loss of control, it allowed for an increase in expression.


Well Derwood, I hate to be the bearer of bad new but our worldviews are in conflict again and that is the cause of our differing opinions.


One's worldview is irrelevant as to what has been observed.  



You see, we say that an intelligent creator (the one you love to hate) made everything perfect in the beginning.


You assert this without any evidenciary support.  Your worldview demands that you accept without question the tales written centuries ago by nomadic goat herders as the absolute truth.



You say chance and time brought everything into existence with no plan or forethought (that is what you think, I presume?)


You presume incorrectly.  I accept what the evidence indicates, when there is insufficient evidence, I simply have no opinion or am free to speculate premised on what evidence there is.
Chance certainly plays a role, but it is not just chance.  The physical and chemical properties iof matter in large part dictate what can and will happen.

So following on that, when a gene no longer does what it was doing properly, it is not considered to be increasing its expression, as you would have it, but rather, IMHO, it is out of control due to loss of control over regulation.

So, your a priori position forces you to reject the obvious and evidence-supported when it does not comport with your beliefs.

Got it.

Your worldview dictates how you will interpret events, and you must use loaded, subjective terminology when discussing such events.  

Got it.

This 'loss of control', so called, confers an adaptive benefit, no matter what your worldview is.  Thus, attempting to dismiss this via definition is merely an example of how one's worldview can force one to reach absurd, unsupportable conclusions.

The same thing is happening but we interpret it differently due to our a priori presuppositions.

Indeed.

Your a priori presuppositions demand that all realty conform to your interpretation of an ancient collection of plagiarised fairy tales.

Mine demands that I accept what the evidence indicates premised on the track record of the underlying paradigm.

No increase in meaningful genetic information has occurred.


Mere assertion.


And you are merely asserting that a random letter change in a gene adds up to an increase in information. Obviously we have differing opinions on what information is.


There are no letters in genes, sorry.
Your 'opinion' seems to be at odds with the very foundation of your supoposed position on this issue. If you are not defining information as it is accepted by information theorists then you are just making things up as you go along such that you can prop up your a priori beliefs.


Wherein most mutations are neutral or nearly so but came become beneficial or deleterious if the environment changes?


And whereas something can be out of control/ overexpressing with no major effect in one situation, it happens to be beneficial in another situation. It is still a loss of control.


And when this 'loss of control' confers an adaptive advantage?

The fact that a gene mutation is situationally beneficial or deleterious does not mean that this organism is ever going to be anything but a fruitfly, does it?

Your continued conflation of isses tells me that you are out of your depth on this one.


They’ve done the experiments over endless generations, it remains a fruitfly, ever a fruitfly and no amount of zapping is ever going to change that.


And werea non-fly to emerge from a lab you'd claim it as evidence for Intelligent Design.  I know how you people operate.
Randy Wysong, creationist veterinarian, in his book "The Creation Controversey", which came out in 1976, declared that life had been created in the lab (I guess he knew something nobody else did) but that it was not evidence for evolution as the scientists added 'KNOW-HOW' (caps in original) to the mix, thus it was evidence for creation (ID wasn't around back then).
You pre-reject any evidence for what you do not accept.

This is in accordance with the predictions of the creation model. In order for your macroevolution to occur, complex information would have to be added to the genome. This is not likely to occur through random mutational errors, common sense alone should tell you that.

Common sense tells me that a grown up should not believe that a magical sky man blew on dirt and a man popped out.

You are assiduously avoiding defining your terms, this is very informative.

Please define "information" as you employ it.  Also, since you brought it up, define 'complex' as well.

I do not have all the answers in terms of genome evolution, but that is no impetus to simply ascribe what I do not at thismoment understand to a mythological superbeing whose existence must simply be believed, as His presence since the advent of things like mass communication seems to be limited to peasant villages.

And the originally 'better' system left millions of Drosophila corpes in its wake, while this 'worse' mutated genome left its possessors alive and well, with no cost.


How was ‘no cost evaluated?

How was the cost evaluated?  You continue to assert that there is a cost, but you seem unable to address how this was determined.

DDT was banned in the US in 1972, and in most other countries by the 1980s.  
Drosophila has a lifes[pan of only about 30 days, so they have had hundreds of generations to get rid of that 'costly' allele, yet it is spreading globally.
If it were so costly, why is it not only persisting, but spreading?

Has enough time passed that that can be determined? Perhaps the cost is small in this particular case. Perhaps you at last have one case where a mutation is beneficial by accident.

Do you have any documented cases of a deity blowing on dirt and a fully formed adult being popping out of it?


It can happen by accident, but in comparison with mutations involving survival cost or straight deleterious mutations or neutral mutations, it has extremely low frequency and there is no way of separating good mutations from associated bad ones in a population so overall, statistically, a population can only go down.

Really?  So how did we get 6 billion humans from 4 inbreeding pairs in only about 4,500 years?

resistance can persist in laboratory strains in the absence of pesticide selection, which suggests that little or no fitness cost is associated with this mechanism."  


There you go –they are not too sure.

I should have known...
Perhaps actual scientists should use the suprememly confident language employed by creationists.
Nah - actual scientists have humility and understand how science actually works.


Obviously they expect a fitness cost but maybe they got lucky here. Some lucky soul usually wins the lotto too.


They expectED a cost, but see none.


You continue to (purposefully?) conflate issues here.  AGAIN, I did not present this as evolution (even though, in its purest form, it certainly is)


There, you give yourself away. That’s an old tactic of the evolutionist. They show you how a finch’s beak varies and when you admit that it does in fact vary, they tell you that thus you must also believe that a galapogos finch could turn into a galapogos elephant given enough time. Now that’s conflation!

I see that to you, 'evolution' means getting a tiger from a fish.

Even Wiki knows better:
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."

I would have hoped that a PhD in science holding expert would not actually rely on simplistic analogies in this arena


I said I have a doctorate that involved basic training in anatomy, physiology, botany, zoology and various other subjects – that is true. What you make of it is your problem.

I make that you did not pay much attention during those undergrad courses - no grad program involves taking such diverse coursework.
Except perhaps those obtained from diploma mills.


Copying a gene not only does increase information in the Shannon (and perhaps Kologorov) sense, i.e., mathematically


Perhaps in the Shannon or Kologorov sense but that does not mean information in the biological sense.


Well then please actually DEFINE what you mean as I have asked you to do so several times already anfd you have thus far been unable to do.

Information, in the biological sense, implies intelligence and purpose.


LOL!!!!


Does it now?

Did you make up that definition all on your own, or did you get it from creationwiki?
Incredible - you people think you can just concoct idiosyncratic definitions as you see fit to ensure that your precious 'worldview' will remain untouched.

In-credible....


Adding a few letters to a well ordered shopping list may increase your information but it is most unlikely to add something real and necessary –that is what is required for biological purposes.

Something real and necessary - like the ability to metabolize DDT and thus be resistant to it?

Apparently, your amazing swath of biology and science-related classes that you for some reason took while earnig your mysterious doctorate were not enough to inform you that english language analogies to genetics only work as an introduction of the basic concepts to at best college freeshmen.


Good for the rats.  We are not talking about them.  


Yes, but I am giving you one of many examples of fitness cost and how situational mutational advantages tend to work.

That was an example of fitness cost - just claiming that they did nto do as well as non-resistant rats?  
My goodness... This is what happens when you get information from sources like AiG (which is where you got it, right?)...

Maybe your AiG heroes engaged in a little selective citation?


A new aspect of warfarin resistance in wild rats: benefits in the absence of poison


SMITH P. (1) ; BERDOY M. ; SMITH R. H. (1) ; MACDONALD D. W. ;

(1) Univ. Reading, school animal microbial sci., dep. pure applied zoology, vertebrate pests unit, Reading RG6 2AJ, ROYAUME-UNI

Abstract
Resistance to the anticoagulant poison warfarin in the brown rat is commonly thought to incur a cost: resistant rats are prone to vitamin K deficiency, show reduced growth rates and reduced viability resulting in a lower fitness for resistant rats in a warfarin-free environment. We investigated the costs of warfarin resistance in terms of body weight, an indicator of resistance costs and a component of fitness, in two populations of wild rats containing resistant individuals from Southern England. In a warfarin-free environment, resistance remained high and contrary to predictions, the vast majority of resistant individuals were significantly heavier than susceptible animals in both populations


Evolution postulates the production of better adapted creatures to their particular environment via a collection of related mechanisms all boiling down to the creation of raw material - variability - via mutation.


I know what they postulate.

No, I don't think you do.


The problem is does it work that way? Does random variability have a hope in hell of creating new and useful information, in sufficient quantity, and in a way that changes are related such that, for example,a liver or a kidney could ‘evolve naturally’ with no plan?


Please define information in the biologcal sense, and please explain just how much of this 'new and useful information' WOULD be required to produce that which you claim is necessary.

Please explain, for example, how much 'new and useful information' must have been required to make a liver, and explain how you determined this.

Otherwise, you are just hurling dodges and smokescreens.

But I am glad you mentioned kidneys - their embryonic development is actually a very nice bit of evidence for evolution.  Maybe I'll start a new thread on it.


It’s a nice story but can it happen?

It apparently did.

Now, the story that I would like to know more about, such as whether it could happen, is the one where Jehovah, lover of foreskins, blows on dirt and Adam popped out.


Variability in the physiology of the fruit fly does not begin to explain the origin of the fruit fly or the origin of anything else for that matter.

No, and it wasn't meant to.


I suggest readinng up on the HOX genes and how duplications and alterations of these genes are implicated in altering body plan.



I have read about them and this is what it boils down to for those of us not so swayed by philosophical expectations and faith :
Hox genes act like switches controlling the expression of other genes. If you put a switch on a computer or an iron, you will be able to switch it on or off. That switch does not explain how the computer or the iron got there in the first place nor does it suggest that the computer evolved from the iron. Even in articles attempting to show  Hox changes as a possible path for evolution, they could only come up with an extra functionless pair of wings on flies, or a functionless leg where the antenna should be as their examples of what hox genes can do. If we are to believe that entire new body plans can result from manipulation of hox genes then we are going to need a few good examples otherwise it is best not to put too much faith in it.

Right - you put your faith in ancient tales spun by nomadic pretechnological goat herders and slaves.

Look around you. There is huge variability in every kind of animal and in the humans as well.
Yes - 6 billion humans possess a huge amount of variablity.  But we are talking 8 people - 4 inbreeding pairs - NOT 6 billion.  Or even a hundred thousand.  EIGHT.


Killing off a whole lot of variability does not tell us how much variability was in those that remained.


Not that much - you don't know much about genetics, do you?  The population is a very important part of fitness.
Look at cheetahs.


Remember in those early days, the people were allowed to intermarry in their own families, in fact they had to right at the beginning, there was no choice.(Perfect genetic material, no mutations?)


Lets see, there is that assertion of perfection again...  And Jehovah ordering inbreeding. OK - so we have two perfect genomes in Adam and Eve (how was Eve created - if Jehovah did it with a part of Adam's rib or side, then she must have been a clone, there is no mention of how Jehovah altered her genome) - how then did we get ANY diversity?



Some time after the flood they were instructed not to intermarry so closely any more.(Build up of mutational errors?)

Wow - what a coincidence!

So, you are saying that prior to this evidence-less flood, inbreeding was still OK?

Amazing!


That didn’t mean they were treated to a lecture on genetics and mutational load only that “GOD SAID DONT” but that is where obedience to God comes in and also choice. God is like the parent that knows more than we do and if he says DON’T, we are supposed to trust that he has a reason for what he is saying and that that reason is for our own good. He made us, he knows how we function and he said don’t do that because I say so. We’ve all had our parents do the same. Only when we disobey do we find out why we shouldn’t have done what they told us not to. Sometimes the consequences are long term but God knows.


That is a nice fairy story - any actual evidence for any of it?


He told the Hebrews to remove the boys foreskins on day 8 after birth. It turns out that on day 8, some clotting factor is at its maximum level but he never gave them the clotting cascade lecture just told them what to do and they trusted God and did it.


What clotting factor is that?

You'd think a PhD creationist with a background in science might just have sufficient curiosity and knowledge to know wehich clotting factor it is you are referring to.

I don't suppose that it might just be possible that the ancients observed that circumcisions done prior to that resulted in bloody messes?

Nah - it musta been foreskin-boy's commandment!


And you know what else I saw on a YEC website one time?  That the FACT that the brain has 7 glands on its base proves that creation took place over 7 days!  AMAZING!

Do you agree with that?


Your parents probably didn’t trust God and now you don’t –that’s just a simple example of the price of disobedience.


What price am I paying?

I mean besides the time I am wasting waiting for you to actually define your terms in an objective, rational, and scientific way?



blah blah blah

Got to go Derwood, I’m being sidelined here. I’ll be back to finish as soon as I can.  


Great - and first things first -

DEFINE:

Information (generally)

Information (in the biological sense)

How cost is determined

etc...







(Edited by derwood 10/19/2009 at 09:48 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:46 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:58 AM on October 19, 2009 :
Fencer, I hesitate to give a full explanation because I don’t want anybody to limit me to my profession as I have spent years reading on other topics as well.


"The self-taught suffer doubly by having both a poor education and a lackluster teacher."


By refusing to say what my degree is in, I keep people like Derwood wondering rather than knowing so that they have to stick as close as possible to the truth just in case I know something about the topic that he does not.


LOL!

You're kidding, right?

Let's see if I have this right - you won't tell us what you amazing doctorate is in because you want to keep people like ME honest?

The fellow who actually seems to believe that the english language analogy is not only an apt one for genetics but for information theory as well?

The fellow who apparently gleans most of his scienice knowledge from Answers in Genesis?

The fellow who ultimately declares that is it all 'worldview' when his bluff is called - THAT guy wants to keep other people HONEST???


In-friggin-credible....


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:52 AM on October 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Woah Derwood!
I think these posts are getting way too long –they’re too much like Wisp’s neverending stories now –quite off putting and getting worse so I’m going to limit my response in an effort to shorten yours.  


One's worldview is irrelevant as to what has been observed.  


If worldview wasn’t important you would notice that the fossil record does not support evolution Derwood. Worldview is warping your view of the evidence. You can’t see what you don’t want to see.

You see, we say that an intelligent creator (the one you love to hate) made everything perfect in the beginning.
You assert this without any evidenciary support.


Why is the commonly used term mutational ‘load’ Derwood. I’m sure you’re well aware of the buildup of detrimental mutations. You imagine good ones as well (and there may be the odd one) but in general we are heading for extinction, not evolving in any good sense.There’s a lot of evidence for this if you can read.

Your worldview demands that you accept without question the tales written centuries ago by nomadic goat herders as the absolute truth.


And you accept the ever changing words of proud and arrogant men who oppose creation on principle –not because of evidence but because they don’t want a creator in the equation.

 I accept what the evidence indicates


Just as long as any indication of design or designer is ignored or explained away.
The physical and chemical properties iof matter in large part dictate what can and will happen.


So how do you explain the simple fact that DNA and proteins that are functional do not form naturally ?

Mine demands that I accept what the evidence indicates premised on the track record of the underlying paradigm.

Aah ‘based on the paradigm’ –there’s your tunnel vision working.
So, your a priori position forces you to reject the obvious and evidence-supported when it does not comport with your beliefs.


That is exactly what you do. You must think that the fossil record is very incomplete since it supports creation at this point. When do you think there’ll be enough fossils that your paradigm will start looking feasible?

There are no letters in genes, sorry.


You know exactly what I mean Derwood and they are as good as letters since they have to be in the correct order to build a protein that makes sense. Functional rather than useless.

Your continued conflation of isses tells me that you are out of your depth on this one.


So are you conceding that you do believe that given enough magical ‘time’ the fruitfly might become something other than a fruitfly –against all evidence to the contrary. Really Derwood, all this talk of evidence and you ignore so much of it in reality. I think it must be you that is out of your depth here.

Common sense tells me that a grown up should not believe that a magical sky man blew on dirt and a man popped out.


Common sense tells me that if DNA and proteins do not form naturally and life only comes from pre-existing life that something had to be different in the past. Who  or what overcame those limitations? Time is not strong enough for that, nor is ‘time’ a magician –perhaps ‘time’ is your magical sky man?

Got to go –later….





-------
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: 10:56 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:56 AM on October 20, 2009 :
Woah Derwood!
I think these posts are getting way too long –they’re too much like Wisp’s neverending stories now –quite off putting and getting worse so I’m going to limit my response in an effort to shorten yours.  
Sure - wouldn't want to actually address all the point s you bring up...


One's worldview is irrelevant as to what has been observed.  


If worldview wasn’t important you would notice that the fossil record does not support evolution Derwood. Worldview is warping your view of the evidence. You can’t see what you don’t want to see.

Interesting bit of projecton, but other than cries of 'no transitionals' and 'not enough fossils', I see nothign of subtance from thje YEC camp (not to suggest that cries of 'no transitionals' and 'not enough fossils' ARE substanticve, since I can't seem to get you to define your terms).

You see, we say that an intelligent creator (the one you love to hate) made everything perfect in the beginning.
You assert this without any evidenciary support.


Why is the commonly used term mutational ‘load’ Derwood.

Why is it what?
This provides evidence that Adam had a perfect genome how exactly?

I’m sure you’re well aware of the buildup of detrimental mutations.


I am also aware that sexual recopmbination acts to keep the number tolerable and also acts to hasten the fixation of beneficial mutations.

Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection
Science 19 October 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5542, pp. 555 - 559

"Our results experimentally verify a counteracting advantage of recombining compared to clonal lineages: reduced accumulationof harmful mutations and increased accumulation of beneficial mutations. The magnitude of this benefit will accrue over geological time and promote the superior persistence of recombining lineages at both the level of species within communities (clonal versus sexual species) and genes within chromosomes (nonrecombining Y-linked versus recombining X-linked genes)."


You imagine good ones as well (and there may be the odd one) but in general we are heading for extinction, not evolving in any good sense.


IF you say so - I mean who can argue with your voluminous evidence...


There’s a lot of evidence for this if you can read.


Please present some - let me guess, Mastrapaolo?  ReMnie?

Your worldview demands that you accept without question the tales written centuries ago by nomadic goat herders as the absolute truth.


And you accept the ever changing words of proud and arrogant men who oppose creation on principle

As opposed to the proud and arrogant men who wrote the bible?  As opposed to the proud and arrogant followers of this myth who, despite a documentable dearth of relevant understanding, proclaim their opinions on this issue beyond reproach?

–not because of evidence but because they don’t want a creator in the equation.

Right, that is the only reason...
If only reality really were so simplisitc.

 I accept what the evidence indicates


Just as long as any indication of design or designer is ignored or explained away.

You know of some?  I've seen none.  Claims that radiometirc dating is flawed and some things are just, darn it, so complex that God musta done it just are not all that convincing.

The physical and chemical properties of matter in large part dictate what can and will happen.


So how do you explain the simple fact that DNA and proteins that are functional do not form naturally ?

I don't know that this is a fact.

Mine demands that I accept what the evidence indicates premised on the track record of the underlying paradigm.

Aah ‘based on the paradigm’ –there’s your tunnel vision working.

The paradigm being the scientific method.

Yours being the inerrancy of an ancient collection of fairy tales.
My paradigm has produced space flight, modern medicine, iphones, etc., yours has brought the Dark Ages, with burning, politicla strife, warfare.

But I forgot - my 'tunnel vision' is bad, yours is good.
So, your a priori position forces you to reject the obvious and evidence-supported when it does not comport with your beliefs.


That is exactly what you do.

You would have actually have had presented evidence for me to reject it.  Can youpoint to a single piece of positive evidence for a young earth and Yahweh-style creation that you have produced that does NOT consist of claiming that there is some problem with the evidence to the contrary?

You must think that the fossil record is very incomplete since it supports creation at this point.

And here we have a nice example.
Please explain - for once - how the fossil record is not just supposeldy inconsistent with evolutioon, but how it actually is evidence FOR a young earth creation.
If you can.

When do you think there’ll be enough fossils that your paradigm will start looking feasible?

About 150 years ago.

There are no letters in genes, sorry.

You know exactly what I mean Derwood

I'm a big boy with a real doctorate.  I've taught basic genetics.  I've done research on DNA evolution.  Please feel free tio use field appropriate technical terminology with me.

and they are as good as letters since they have to be in the correct order to build a protein that makes sense. Functional rather than useless.

A protein that makes sense.  Now.  To you personally.
Your continued conflation of isses tells me that you are out of your depth on this one.


So are you conceding that you do believe that given enough magical ‘time’ the fruitfly might become something other than a fruitfly –against all evidence to the contrary.

I am conceding that your strawman arguments and conflation of issues demonstrates that you are out of your depth.

Really Derwood, all this talk of evidence and you ignore so much of it in reality.

Such as?
You keep talking about evidence, buit all you seem capable of is engaging in denialism and claiming insufficiency for MY pov.  Even if I were 100% wrong, YOU would NOT be 100% correct by default.


I think it must be you that is out of your depth here.

Again, it was not me that used a freshman level analogy as evidence.

Common sense tells me that a grown up should not believe that a magical sky man blew on dirt and a man popped out.


Common sense tells me that if DNA and proteins do not form naturally

They do.  Don't youkeep up?

and life only comes from pre-existing life that something had to be different in the past.

Maybe it was, but that does not lend credence to your fairy story of dirt blowing.

Who  or what overcame those limitations? Time is not strong enough for that, nor is ‘time’ a magician –perhaps ‘time’ is your magical sky man?

No, time allows for the improbable to becoem probable.
Of course, again, even if I am totally wrong, it would not mean that your dirt-blowing man maker story is true.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:57 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If worldview wasn’t important you would notice that the fossil record does not support evolution Derwood. Worldview is warping your view of the evidence. You can’t see what you don’t want to see.


Interesting bit of projecton, but other than cries of 'no transitionals' and 'not enough fossils', I see nothign of subtance from thje YEC camp (not to suggest that cries of 'no transitionals' and 'not enough fossils' ARE substanticve, since I can't seem to get you to define your terms).


The projection is all yours unfortunately.
What terms should we define here –not enough or fossils or transitionals –what is it that you’d like to know?
As for the subject at hand and assuming you do understand the terms –‘transitionals’ are few and far between given the abundance of fossils lining the walls of Natural history museums. Gradualism is absent. Gaps are systematic and large in general and given the numbers of fossils catalogued (over 200 million) there is no excuse for the dearth of gradualistic evidence that has been found. If the impression is incorrect (according to evolutionists) how many fossils will be considered to be enough to change this misleading impression?

Why is it what?
This provides evidence that Adam had a perfect genome how exactly?


Detrimental mutations by far outnumber any considered to be beneficial. Thus it appears that the general quality of the genome can only be going down towards extinction rather than improvement. This gives us reason to believe that the human genome used to be better. Selection does help but only because it gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration but does not stop it. Even with intense selection pressure, evolution is going the wrong way.
Well known geneticist Dr Crow said we are ‘genetically inferior to a cave man’ (if there were such a thing). Human geneticists in general do agree that our genome is degenerating. This degeneration is consistent with what the Bible has to say about our lives.

"Our results experimentally verify a counteracting advantage of recombining compared to clonal lineages: reduced accumulationof harmful mutations and increased accumulation of beneficial mutations.


Not according to Geneticist John Sanford who, in combo with others has written the programme ‘Mendel’s accountant’ which demonstrates empirically that our genome is deteriorating rapidly. He says natural selection can’t keep up. There are not nearly enough beneficials to counteract the bad mutations so fitness has to decline. He also wrote the book “Genetic Entropy” on this topic.Great book, you should read it.

Just as long as any indication of design or designer is ignored or explained away.
 You know of some?  I've seen none.


Design, Derwood, incredible design in nature. Dawkins likes to call it ‘apparent design’ but that is only because he sees it is clearly designed but he can’t tolerate the designer any more than you can - so he pretends that the designer doesn’t exist. You MUST be a fan of Dawkins!

some things are just, darn it, so complex that God musta done it just are not all that convincing.


Claims that bat sonar and so many engineering wonders in nature just happened due to random mutations and selection of the best ones are far less convincing however.

The paradigm being the scientific method.


The paradigm being evolution. We all use the scientific method, in fact we wish you’d use it more and rely on imagination less.

My paradigm has produced space flight, modern medicine, iphones, etc


No, your paradigm, evolution, has brought forth many fairy tales, cute but unbelievable. The scientific method has brought forth technological advances and creationists use it as well as the evolution believers.

But I forgot - my 'tunnel vision' is bad, yours is good.


Yours is a sad reflection of reigning bad science with evil gloss. Evolution is good for nothing, it holds real science back with garbage concepts like “Junk DNA”.

Can youpoint to a single piece of positive evidence for a young earth and Yahweh-style creation that you have produced


Design

When do you think there’ll be enough fossils that your paradigm will start looking feasible?
About 150 years ago.


No, now you are very confused. Even Darwin knew that the fossil record was the biggest objection to his theory but he assumed that time and more fossil collecting would fix that. 200 million fossils later and it looks worse for evolution, not better. The gaps persist, old examples of transitionals have proven to be invalid and new fossil digs only produce more of the same, never more gradualism.

So how do you explain the simple fact that DNA and proteins that are functional do not form naturally ?
I don't know that this is a fact.


Well it is actually.

I'm a big boy with a real doctorate.


Wow!

 I've taught basic genetics.


Wow!

 I've done research on DNA evolution.


That’s assuming it happened, which is most unlikely since it doesn’t form naturally.

A protein that makes sense.  Now.  To you personally.


No, a protein that is functional is one that is ordered correctly for function. You can’t just throw amino-acids together but I’m sure you must know that.

Again, it was not me that used a freshman level analogy as evidence.


You like things to sound difficult, I like to simplify.

Common sense tells me that if DNA and proteins do not form naturally
They do.  Don't youkeep up?


According to you not, so why don’t you show me where they have formed naturally.

and life only comes from pre-existing life that something had to be different in the past.
Maybe it was, but that does not lend credence to your fairy story of dirt blowing.


It lends more credence to my story than to your story of the most fortunate and extremely unlikely self organization of primordial chemicals in a primordial soup.The words might be bigger but then so is the fantabulousness of it all.

No, time allows for the improbable to becoem probable.


Not if there’s not nearly enough time in all the imaginary billions of years for even one functional protein to form naturally.

Of course, again, even if I am totally wrong


You are, the probability remains the same, it never becomes more probable -but you must know that as well.




-------
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: 06:14 AM on October 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:14 AM on October 21, 2009 :

What terms should we define here –not enough or fossils or transitionals –what is it that you’d like to know?


How about all of them?

Start with a reasonable definition of TRANSITIONAL.  Please give an example of what you would expect and why.

Then you can explain how many there should be and why.

As for the subject at hand and assuming you do understand the terms –‘transitionals’ are few and far between given the abundance of fossils lining the walls of Natural history museums.

Without your definitoons, this is meaningless tripe.

Gradualism is absent. Gaps are systematic and large in general and given the numbers of fossils catalogued (over 200 million) there is no excuse for the dearth of gradualistic evidence that has been found.


Repeated mantras are not evidence, especuially when you've not even attempted to support these claims. I've asked you at least twice what you meant by 'gradualism' (remember - all you said that my take on it was a 'strawman' but you never actually said what you meant for some reason).  Add to that the fact that you continue to avoid defining teransitional and providing your scioentific rationale for your criteria, and all we have is a lot of assertions and hot air.
Put up or shut up, 'doc.'


If the impression is incorrect (according to evolutionists) how many fossils will be considered to be enough to change this misleading impression?

If that impression is not shared by those that actually study the issue - and it is not - your question is rhetorical nonsense.

Why is it what?
This provides evidence that Adam had a perfect genome how exactly?


Detrimental mutations by far outnumber any considered to be beneficial.

By how much and how do you know?

Thus it appears that the general quality of the genome can only be going down towards extinction rather than improvement.

Truncation selection?  Epistasis?  

This gives us reason to believe that the human genome used to be better.

That is your evidence?

LOL!

Selection does help but only because it gets rid of the worst mutations. This slows mutational degeneration but does not stop it. Even with intense selection pressure, evolution is going the wrong way.
Well known geneticist Dr Crow said we are ‘genetically inferior to a cave man’ (if there were such a thing).

Really? He said that?  I've had email conversations with Dr.Crow and he has lamented having hsi statements misused by creationists.  Surely, you can provide a source for that claim?

Human geneticists in general do agree that our genome is degenerating.

They do?  Citation please.

"Our results experimentally verify a counteracting advantage of recombining compared to clonal lineages: reduced accumulationof harmful mutations and increased accumulation of beneficial mutations.


Not according to Geneticist John Sanford who, in combo with others has written the programme ‘Mendel’s accountant’ which demonstrates empirically that our genome is deteriorating rapidly.

You mean plant horticulturist John C. Sanford, creationsit?  I've mentioned his amazing program - though not by name.  it is the one that will not allow a starting population of 8 or 2.  
And how, exactly, does a model trump actual observances produced via experimentation?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:55 AM on October 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Given up on your rats, have you?
Quote from Lester10 at 06:14 AM on October 21, 2009 :
 He [Sanford] says natural selection can’t keep up. There are not nearly enough beneficials to counteract the bad mutations so fitness has to decline. He also wrote the book “Genetic Entropy” on this topic.Great book, you should read it.


No, I should niot read the latest pablum from a creationist who is using his affiliation with Cornell to embellish his credentials.  
Sanford has also bailed from a moderated discussion on Tweb wherein several people familair with both population genetics and computer modelling had exposed a number of shortcoming in his amazing program.


Just as long as any indication of design or designer is ignored or explained away.
 You know of some?  I've seen none.


Design, Derwood, incredible design in nature.

Oh, well, why didn't you assert this earlier!

some things are just, darn it, so complex that God musta done it just are not all that convincing.


Claims that bat sonar and so many engineering wonders in nature just happened due to random mutations and selection of the best ones are far less convincing however.


Right...

And how is that blow-on-dirt-man-pop-out evidence coming along?

But please, tell me all about bat sonar.


The paradigm being the scientific method.


The paradigm being evolution. We all use the scientific method, in fact we wish you’d use it more and rely on imagination less.


This coming from the 'doctor' who thinks a freshman language analogy to gene action has irreproachable impetus...

STILL waiting for actual evidence supportive of YECism that does not consist of claiming some problem with evolution.

I don't ever expect to see any.

My paradigm has produced space flight, modern medicine, iphones, etc


No, your paradigm, evolution, has brought forth many fairy tales, cute but unbelievable.

Well, I had hoped that you might step up the plate and show us your doctrate-level stuff, but all you seem able to muster are these infantile asinine mantras.


But I forgot - my 'tunnel vision' is bad, yours is good.


Yours is a sad reflection of reigning bad science with evil gloss. Evolution is good for nothing, it holds real science back with garbage concepts like “Junk DNA”.


Really?

Tell me more about this.  

Can youpoint to a single piece of positive evidence for a young earth and Yahweh-style creation that you have produced


Design



LOL!!!


THAT is EVIDENCE???

What a friggin JOKE.


When do you think there’ll be enough fossils that your paradigm will start looking feasible?
About 150 years ago.


No, now you are very confused. Even Darwin knew that the fossil record was the biggest objection to his theory but he assumed that time and more fossil collecting would fix that. 200 million fossils later and it looks worse for evolution, not better. The gaps persist, old examples of transitionals have proven to be invalid and new fossil digs only produce more of the same, never more gradualism.


More of the same.

When do you plan on going beyond the same shopworn assertions?


Heck, you can't even handle providing YOUR definiton of transitional, yet here you are blabbering that there aren't any.

Pathetic.

So how do you explain the simple fact that DNA and proteins that are functional do not form naturally ?
I don't know that this is a fact.


Well it is actually.


Oh, well, another ASSERTION devoid of support or explanation.  Color me converted!

I'm a big boy with a real doctorate.


Wow!


Unlike you.


 I've taught basic genetics.


Wow!  Hey - at least you finally realized what "phenotype" means - maybe now you won't make such silly claims at least on that issue anymore...


Which you've never taken.

 I've done research on DNA evolution.


That’s assuming it happened, which is most unlikely since it doesn’t form naturally.


Are these  mantras and assertions and conflations and dodges really all you have to offer?


A protein that makes sense.  Now.  To you personally.


No, a protein that is functional is one that is ordered correctly for function. You can’t just throw amino-acids together but I’m sure you must know that.

No, explain it all to me.


Again, it was not me that used a freshman level analogy as evidence.


You like things to sound difficult, I like to simplify.

That is all you can handle - simple.

Freshman level analogies breakdown above the very simplest.

But how would you even know?

(Edited by derwood 10/22/2009 at 08:39 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:51 AM on October 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On Lester's behalf i must say that, even if i wouldn't buy it for a second, the appearance of design counts as evidence for design. This has lead many smart people to keep believing in a creator in the past (it doesn't happen much nowadays though).

Oh, and the issue about our degenerating DNA... First of all, i don't think that, even if it was true, it should be used as evidence for a general deterioration, since it doesn't happen to many species. And Evolution doesn't have a special place in its heart for humans.

That being said, i've found contradictory opinions among experts. Some say we're degenerating, some say the opposite.

Isn't it possible that we're degenerating due to the fact that too many of us are born and too few die these days? Medicine, hygiene and better food means a much more relaxed selective force.
Lots of things are still under a strong selective force (the genes of those who don't have sex don't spread much), but some have decreased (regarding our body, resistance to infections, etc).

Of course creationists would cling to this opinion like ticks, but in some respects the genes of our ancestors must have been better than we have today. I mean, i bet that if you go far enough into the past our ancestors didn't need to ingest vitamin C, for instance. I would say that we lost this because our food was rich in vitamin C, so the selective force to maintain the capability pretty much disappeared.

I bet that we're having an increasing percentage of color-blind people.

On the other hand perhaps intelligence is under a stronger selective force. I don't know, it could be.



-------
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: 3:57 PM on October 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 3:57 PM on October 21, 2009 :
[color=teal]On Lester's behalf i must say that, even if i wouldn't buy it for a second, the appearance of design counts as evidence for design.

Just a quick note on my way out - would that mean that if I think the moon appears to be made of swiss cheese that would count as evidence that it is?


This has lead many smart people to keep believing in a creator in the past (it doesn't happen much nowadays though).

It is essentially an argument from ignorance, I wouldn't count it as evidence.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:29 PM on October 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On Lester's behalf i must say that, even if i wouldn't buy it for a second, the appearance of design counts as evidence for design.
Just a quick note on my way out - would that mean that if I think the moon appears to be made of swiss cheese that would count as evidence that it is?
Precisely.
This has lead many smart people to keep believing in a creator in the past (it doesn't happen much nowadays though).
It is essentially an argument from ignorance, I wouldn't count it as evidence.
The evidence that the Moon is made of swiss cheese is very weak, but if the Moon was red that would count as evidence against. It's only fair to count its appearance as evidence for.

Back to Evolution, and contrary to what i've been saying, there's no way things could look not-designed. That's an argument against it's validity as evidence.

Edit:
I mean, because it can be used as evidence for two opposing propositions.

Hypothesis: All crows are black.
Corollary: everything that's not black is not a crow.
Piece of evidence: a green leaf.

But still... I sometimes feel sorry for them... Not a single piece of strong evidence... Let's concede them a weak one at least...


(Edited by wisp 10/21/2009 at 10:56 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: 9:55 PM on October 21, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But still... I sometimes feel sorry for them... Not a single piece of strong evidence... Let's concede them a weak one at least...

Nahh,
To quote Gerard Butler as Leonidis in 300:
"Give them Nothing, take from them... everything!"

I must admit, I would love to see Lester actually address some of derwoods points as to definition of terms and requirements. I wonder if there will ever be a straight forward answer...

(Edited by JimIrvine 10/22/2009 at 04:49 AM).


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 04:47 AM on October 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 04:47 AM on October 22, 2009 :
But still... I sometimes feel sorry for them... Not a single piece of strong evidence... Let's concede them a weak one at least...

Nahh,
To quote Gerard Butler as Leonidis in 300:
"Give them Nothing, take from them... everything!"

I must admit, I would love to see Lester actually address some of derwoods points as to definition of terms and requirements. I wonder if there will ever be a straight forward answer...



YEC/ID types have a long history of refusing to provide definitions for their terms.  Why?

Well, I think there are two major possibilities:

1. They don't know.
This is probably the most common overall, since most of the people who engage in these sorts of discussions are the 'foot soldiers' in the manefactured culture wars.  They are force fed some propaganda at church or on their favoprite website about evolution, and the person telling them about it embellished their credentials and so really impressed the foot soldier, so they feel compelled to believe everything they were told/read about at face value, and further, they feel compelled to share the news.  
This is why one of the first things I do when I encounter a newbie making claims about 'information' and 'no transitionals' and such is ask them what they mean.  Most often, the question is ignored, they defer to their 'authority' who told them about it in the first place, or they spew some nonsense off the top of their head.

2. They have a good idea, but they know that if they explain what they mean, they will have lost their plausible deniability - i.e., they will have lost their wiggle room, their ability to 'honestly' shift the goal posts.

Lester has already engaged in a hamfisted attempt at goal post shifting on transitionals - first he says there are none at all, then when the tide turns against him, he implies that there are not enough of them.

Pretty sloppy, but it is all he can seem to muster.






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:31 AM on October 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, they can't, because:

a) It will be blatantly whimsical.
b) If it's remotely reasonable, we can show them an easy example.
c) They're clueless, and don't know what they're talking about.
d) They lose the advantage of passing equivocation fallacies.

   A feather is light.
   What is light cannot be dark.
   Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Edit: Haha, sorry, derwood. I didn't mean to plagiarize you. I had not seen your post before i wrote mine.


(Edited by wisp 10/22/2009 at 08:49 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: 08:46 AM on October 22, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Agreed on all counts.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 09:22 AM on October 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bump


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:56 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See how many errors of interpretation and mistakes based on ignorance one can see in Lester's comments...(I must admit I think I exposed all of them, but this would be a good exercise for porkchop)
Quote from derwood at 1:18 PM on October 15, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 09:29 AM on October 15, 2009 :
we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1.


Well there’s your clue, thanks for that Derwood. You see, it works like this –the resistance was already present and thus the Drosophila survived and reproduced.

Ummm...

I think you may want to read it again.
The gene that confers resistence confers resistence BECAUSE it is overexpressed due to the information-gaining mutation.


The problem is that this is not an example of evolution since the mutation already existed.


If the mutation already existed then it would not be considered a mutation, now would it?

You need to read more than one sentence at a time:

"Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."

The accord transposon inserted into the promoter region of this allele and that insertin causes the overexpression.  Those drosophila without it cannot metabolite DDT and die.

This was not presented as evolution, this was presented as an information-gaining mutation.  That much should have been obvious from the title of the thread.

Obviously it blocked the DDT action, which the others were unable to do - but in every case the blocking is due to loss of function or rearrangement of proteins or membranes or overproduction of something already in existence,  which subsequently prevented the action of the pesticide.


How, exactly, is making more of something a loss?  What rearrangement are you referring to?  Did you read the paper?  Or are you just tossing out anything you can to reject this out of hand?

As I wrote:

1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"
2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype
3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.

Thanks for proving my point.



That is not the new information you require for macroevolution;

I did not say it was.  I presented this as an example of an information-gaining mutation.  A genetic 'mistake' provided a population of drosophila with the ability to metabolize DDT.  A clear adaptive (i.e., beneficial) advantage.  If thsi si NOT an increase in informaiton, then clealry an increase of informaiton is not actually required for adaptive benefits to evolve.

it is the disturbed or distorted information that carries with it a fitness cost.

What is the cost and how did you figure it out?

There is also less genetic variability in the population since you have eliminated the genetic variability present in the population that was wiped out.

So, whern Yahweh killed millions of humans in the flood, what happened to all that variability?
How on earth did we get all the variation we see today from 4 inbreeding pairs?
You CANNOT claim that they possessed all the variability, as you are claiming here that loss of part of a population confers a loss of genetic variability.

Please explain.  

Further, you are conflating a populations genetic variability with what goes on in one genome.  And even further, the loss of those not resistent, i.e., those without the beneficial mutation, apparently did not affect the overall fitness of drosophila.


Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally.


It spread globally because it survived. It survived because of a mutation or variant allele it already possessed.


Right - an information gaining mutation conferred an adaptive, beneficial advantage to the population.

What, exactly, do you think a mutation acts on?  I thought you had a science doctorate, yet here it seems as though you are unaware of basic genetics, something covered in introductory undergraduate biology.


1. It is a clear example of an adaptive trait produced via a genetic "mistake"


Adaptive but with a fitness cost.


What fitness cost?  Please show your work and explain how you derived this.


No new information –just distortion, deletion or overproduction of old information.

By definition, the addition of more nucleotides (such as via insertion) adds information.
But I know that creationists like to conflate and redefine definitions as it suits them such that they can make any point they feel the need to - even if the points are mutually exclusive.

But since you are making this argument, why don't you start by defining "information" for us.
Explain how your definition is relevant to the scenario at hand.  Then, with something more than assertions gleaned from your favorite YEC websites and books, EXPLAIN how gaining an adaptive trait is not a gain of information.  

2. It shows that a 'new' protein or a 'new' gene need not be produced to alter physiology/phenotype


There is no new phenotype being produced here. That is required for macroevolution.


PHENOTYPE:

phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior (Wiki)


PHENOTYPE:

: the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment (Merriam-Webster.com)

I suggest you brush up on basic biology terminology.

3. It shows that, if this is not considered as a gain of information by YEC/ID-types, then their 'no new information' arguments are really irrelevant.


We hesitate to call it new information because it is not new information.


No, you merely assert it, and concoct idiosyncratic post-hoc definitions to ensure that nothing will ever count as 'new information.'


Your example demonstrates the sort of advantage that an armless man has when the enemy comes along with handcuffs to capture the opposition. They can’t handcuff him so he has a temporary advantage. Does that mean that no arms is generally an advantageous mutation or deletion?


None of that is relevant at all to the example I gave.  

Your responses here come across more like a hackneyed set of all-purpose assertions and dodges rather than an attempt to actually address the issue presented.  There was no deletion, there was no loss of fitness.  
An insertion is not a deletion, an overexpression of a protein is not a loss of anything.



“Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
– Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65.


Yes, the genetic variants probably were.  Where does the variation come from?




 

(Edited by derwood 10/15/2009 at 1:48 PM).






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:02 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester:


Well known geneticist Dr Crow said we are ‘genetically inferior to a cave man’ (if there were such a thing).

Really? He said that?  I've had email conversations with Dr.Crow and he has lamented having his statements misused by creationists.  Surely, you can provide a source for that claim?



(Edited by derwood 12/30/2009 at 10:01 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:12 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I predict an editorial silence.


-------
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: 12:55 AM on December 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 4:12 PM on December 29, 2009 :
Lester:


Well known geneticist Dr Crow said we are ‘genetically inferior to a cave man’ (if there were such a thing).

Really? He said that?  I've had email conversations with Dr.Crow and he has lamented having his statements misused by creationists.  Surely, you can provide a source for that claim?



Whats this?

ANOTHER never-sourced claim from Lester the docotrate holding creationist?

In ANOTHER information-related thread that the ol' Doc got embarrassed in?

You'd think these people would learn after a while.  Heck - even groundhogs stop digging in fields after they've been chased by a dog a few times.


I think we need to hold the doc's feet to the fire for these repeated claims that he cannot support.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:10 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You'd think that stop making claims is easier than enduring the shame, but you'd be assuming that Lester has any.

And yet i bet some ghost creationists reading this will think he's "destroying the competition".



-------
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: 09:02 AM on April 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BUMP


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:18 PM on September 11, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood's sourceThe genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
– Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65.
Lester
Yes, the genetic variants probably were.  Where does the variation come from?


I think what Crow said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean, is irrelevant here. It's what I asked that never got answered that is more important and more relevant to the thread.

So tell me, where did the variation come from?

Apart from that, the reason we are genetically inferior to our human ancestors is because every generation has more neutral mutations that can't be selected against (like rust accumulating in the body of a car) and more negative mutations giving rise to negative consequences as can be seen in more than
10 000 genetic syndromes in the human population. We are devolving according to this tally, not evolving, so Crow aside, if you can't see that we are genetically inferior, it's just sad.

We're heading for extinction, just like everything else, no evolution there.





-------
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: 02:50 AM on September 12, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 4:12 PM on December 29, 2009 :
Lester:


Well known geneticist Dr Crow said we are ‘genetically inferior to a cave man’ (if there were such a thing).

Really? He said that?  I've had email conversations with Dr.Crow and he has lamented having his statements misused by creationists.  Surely, you can provide a source for that claim?


Guess not - another YEC claim exposed.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:12 PM on September 12, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:50 AM on September 12, 2010 :
Derwood's sourceThe genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.”
– Francisco J. Ayala. “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 65.
Lester
Yes, the genetic variants probably were.  Where does the variation come from?


I think what Crow said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean, is irrelevant here.


Right, of course.
Easier than actually providing a source for a claim.

It's what I asked that never got answered that is more important and more relevant to the thread.

Coming from you, such a claim rings awfully hollow.  For crying out loud - I have frequently made a point of re-posting the many things that you ignore - repeatedly - and you never reply.  

So tell me, where did the variation come from?

Normal variation produced via mutation within  a population.  Surely a genetics expert like you understands how large of a pool of variants exist in a large population via mutation?  Surely an expert like you knows that in humans, for example, any two differ genetically by some 3.7 million bps (not including indels, gene copy number polymorphisms, etc.).

Where do YOU think it came from, and what is your evidence for your position?  Are you really going to claim that Yahweh provided a pest with the means of avoiding his prize creation's attempt at controlling the spread of disease and crop loss?  


Apart from that, the reason we are genetically inferior to our human ancestors is because every generation has more neutral mutations that can't be selected against (like rust accumulating in the body of a car) and more negative mutations giving rise to negative consequences as can be seen in more than
10 000 genetic syndromes in the human population.


Ah, so it doesn't matter that you cannot cite the source for your supposed 'evolutionist' corroboration of your position, yet here you are relying on silly religious myths as a source of unquestionable truth.

If a mutation is neutral, then it is NOT like rust on a car, for rust on a car is NOT neutral.

What you are ignoring is one of the things I have presented to you several times - the benefits of sexual recombination.  Experiment has shown that sexual recombination hastens both the accumulation of beneficial mutations and the extinction of harmful ones.

Why do you so often ignore such things?  Does ignoring evidence make it easier to keep hawking your claims?


We are devolving according to this tally, not evolving, so Crow aside, if you can't see that we are genetically inferior, it's just sad.


Almost as sad as using evidence from those you feel are delusional, deceived, etc. to prop up your position when you think you can get away with it.  
What tally are you referring to?  Is it really your position that these genetic diseases are 'new'?
I have to laugh - Dr. Joe Mastropaolo, YEC (kinesiology) has claimed that humans will be extinct within a few hundred years based on a comparison of charts from National Geographic, published more than a decade apart, 'tallying' the number of diseases known to have a genetic componant.  The newer chart had many more such diseases listed.  Mastropaolo declared that this proved 'devolution' and mutational meltdown - all due to your loving god's "curse" on all humanity for all time.

Problem is, Mastropaolo, PhD., YEC, was too stupid/incompetent/deceptive to realize that 1. the technology used to discover gene/disease linkages has gotten substantially better, more efficient, more sensitive, and less expensive over time and so 2. more and mnore diseases have been discovered to have genetic componants to them.  These are not "new" diseases, it is just that the old diseases were found to have a genetic componant.
I am shocked that a super scientist of your caliber did not realize this.


We're heading for extinction, just like everything else, no evolution there.


Thanks to your 'all loving' Yahweh's 'curse' on even the descendants of the original sinners.

What a scumbag you worship.



Oh - still waiting for you to finish defending Pogge.  Funny that you decided to truncate your response just about at the point where I really demonstrate out Pogge's ignorance...

(Edited by derwood 9/12/2010 at 12:32 PM).

(Edited by derwood 9/13/2010 at 08:56 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:30 PM on September 12, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:50 AM on September 12, 2010 :
We're heading for extinction, just like everything else, no evolution there.


This sounds like something David Koresh or Jim Jones would say.



-------
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: 12:39 PM on September 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well known geneticist Dr Crow said we are ‘genetically inferior to a cave man’ (if there were such a thing).

I think what Crow said or didn't say, meant or didn't mean, is irrelevant here.


Oh... It's irrelevant here.

Where would it be relevant? Do you need another thread for you to defend another one of your claims?

If it wasn't relevant here, why did you, you know, post it here?

What seems and when it stops seeming relevant to you is quite telling. Like the Tiktaalik limbs. We all saw how that issue became suddenly irrelevant to you.



-------
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: 12:56 PM on September 12, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.