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
     Limits to variation
       Expound

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

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
wisp
Lester
and we believe that thus there are limits to variation.
If i start a thread about that, would you post? Because i don't know what you're talking about, and my guess is that you don't either.
Sure Wisp, anytime.
Thread started.

So, Lester, what are those limits to variation?

Please, let them be something factual, and nothing conceptual. Organisms don't know or care about what we call them. They don't deal with concepts. Stick to material limitations, please.

Thanks in advance.



-------
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: 08:42 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think i'll just forget about it, Lester?

"
Anytime", you said...


-------
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: 12:28 AM on November 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't stress Wisp, i'll be here as soon as I can. Not enough time in my day to deal with information and variation but I'll get 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: 08:02 AM on November 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You posted several silly things in random threads since i've made this one. Only recently you posted in "information".

Don't lie, Lester. Be a good Christian.



-------
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: 12:34 PM on November 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

At least be honest and say "I don't have a good answer right now. Let me think about it and investigate and i'll come back to you later."

It will have meant that you talked about it without knowing what you were talking about (which you do pretty often).

You accuse us of arrogance, and don't notice yours. You don't like to say "
I don't know."

It's not that bad.



-------
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: 12:43 PM on November 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp At least be honest and say "I don't have a good answer right now. Let me think about it and investigate and i'll come back to you later."


But if I say, "I don't have a good answer right now. Let me think about it and investigate and i'll come back to you later," I’d be lying so I opted for the truth instead. There, a good Christian after all!

You accuse us of arrogance, and don't notice yours.


Generally I accuse Derwood of arrogance (it goes without saying really) but it does seem to be the evolutionist’s weakness. They like to think that they are the king of the castle of empirical knowledge and when challenged, they behave aggressively – and arrogantly. Don’t worry, I have not really thought of you as arrogant.

You don't like to say "I don't know."

It's not that bad.


As soon as I don’t know what to say and cannot even look up and work out what to say, I shall say ‘I don’t know’. Ok? Until then, it would be dishonest and an example of false modesty.

You posted several silly things in random threads since i've made this one. Only recently you posted in "information".


Yes, and only after I had posted several random silly short answers to various threads that I felt like answering, did I notice your new thread slipping down into oblivion. At that point I thought to let you know that I would be there as soon as possible. Is that ok with you or would you have preferred for me to have done things according to your plan?? I’m not a mind reader you know.

So, Lester, what are those limits to variation?

Please, let them be something factual, and nothing conceptual.


When speciation gets to the point where the allelic choices are so depleted as to allow no further adaptation, when further adaptation is called for, extinction will occur. That is the limit of variation.




-------
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: 07:43 AM on November 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:43 AM on November 30, 2009 :
When speciation gets to the point where the allelic choices are so depleted as to allow no further adaptation, when further adaptation is called for, extinction will occur. That is the limit of variation.


So, you are saying that as time goes on, creationism predicts there is less allelic variation in a population.  Correct?



-------
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: 1:57 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

At least be honest and say "I don't have a good answer right now. Let me think about it and investigate and i'll come back to you later."
(...) I’d be lying so I opted for the truth instead.
Hum...
You accuse us of arrogance, and don't notice yours.
Generally I accuse Derwood of arrogance (it goes without saying really) but it does seem to be the evolutionist’s weakness.
I believe it's much more arrogant to talk about things you don't understand with the intention to override the much more educated opinions from those who have seriously studied the subject.
They like to think that they are the king of the castle of empirical knowledge and when challenged, they behave aggressively – and arrogantly.
Some do. Some don't. But go tell a doctor that he doesn't know anything, and that you can cure people more effectively with Voodoo, and see how the average doctor responds.

Voodoo proponents will probably deem doctors as arrogant and aggressive.

Don’t worry, I have not really thought of you as arrogant.
Well thank you!
You're thinking i might be dishonest though. That, to me, is a lot worse. Honesty is one of my principles.
I don't say i would follow it to the death (i would probably lie to a robber/kidnapper/murderer in some circumstances), but still. Many years have passed since my last lie (white or black).

You don't like to say "I don't know."
As soon as I don’t know what to say and cannot even look up and work out what to say, I shall say ‘I don’t know’. Ok?
Yes, ok, but you haven't done so in the past.
Until then, it would be dishonest and an example of false modesty.
Of course.

You posted several silly things in random threads since i've made this one. Only recently you posted in "information".
Yes, and only after I had posted several random silly short answers to various threads that I felt like answering, did I notice your new thread slipping down into oblivion.
Hum...

If that's true, then i take that back and apologize.
At that point I thought to let you know that I would be there as soon as possible. Is that ok with you or would you have preferred for me to have done things according to your plan?? I’m not a mind reader you know.
Yeah, ok, ok. Sorry again. I thought you were maliciously avoiding the issue.

So, Lester, what are those limits to variation?

Please, let them be something factual, and nothing conceptual.
When speciation gets to the point where the allelic choices are so depleted as to allow no further adaptation,
(or Evolution)
when further adaptation is called for, extinction will occur.
I agree that such a thing would happen if speciation caused a net reduction of alleles.

What if we show you that such a thing doesn't happen?

Would you correct yourself? Would you say "I was wrong. I take that back."?

You haven't answered to any of my big lettered questions yet, i don't know why it would work this time...

That is the limit of variation.
So, even if speciation reduced the net number of alleles, the limit to variation would only work during speciation. Right?

So if a single species didn't get divided, it could evolve with no limits whatsoever, in your view. Right?


(Edited by wisp 11/30/2009 at 2:22 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: 2:17 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:43 AM on November 30, 2009 :
Wisp At least be honest and say "I don't have a good answer right now. Let me think about it and investigate and i'll come back to you later."


But if I say, "I don't have a good answer right now. Let me think about it and investigate and i'll come back to you later," I’d be lying so I opted for the truth instead. There, a good Christian after all!

So, where's the answer?

You accuse us of arrogance, and don't notice yours.


Generally I accuse Derwood of arrogance (it goes without saying really) but it does seem to be the evolutionist’s weakness. They like to think that they are the king of the castle of empirical knowledge and when challenged, they behave aggressively – and arrogantly.

Have you ever truly sat down and read YOUR OWN posts?  What about your pals timbrx or gluteus maximus?  Can you not see your own arrogance?
And why would you accuse me of arrogance when I have, on several occasions, fully admitted that I or 'we' (as in we evolutionists) have no answer for something?  Have YOU ever admitted that you have no answer for something?

And as wisp indicates - who is more arrogant - the person that understands an issue and corrects the errors made by others when discussing the issue, or the one making the errorsin the first place who declares himself incapable of error?

You don't like to say "I don't know."

It's not that bad.


As soon as I don’t know what to say and cannot even look up and work out what to say, I shall say ‘I don’t know’. Ok? Until then, it would be dishonest and an example of false modesty.


The sleazy arrogance oozes out of this one...

You really think that wiki or AiG 'expertise' is real expertise, don't you?  You simply assume that everything you read in creationist sources is 100% true and accurate, don't you?

You probably also believe that there really were 1+ million people at that Tea Bagger rally in Washington...

When speciation gets to the point where the allelic choices are so depleted as to allow no further adaptation, when further adaptation is called for, extinction will occur. That is the limit of variation.


So you allow for speciation.  What is the limit of speciation?

Are dogs and bears 'related'?  Dogs and hyenas?  

Even your 'definitons' - when you ever actually provide them -  are so nebulous as to be worthless.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:51 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

So, you are saying that as time goes on, creationism predicts there is less allelic variation in a population.  Correct?


Yes, that’s correct.



-------
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: 01:16 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WISP
I believe it's much more arrogant to talk about things you don't understand with the intention to override the much more educated opinions from those who have seriously studied the subject.


The problem is, Wisp, that I am overriding with the opinions of qualified experts with opposing presuppositions to the presuppositions of those that you happen to agree with. None of my opinions are mine alone but are based on many opinions of scientists of various specialities that do not happen to agree with your specialists. So perhaps it is arrogant of you to think that your specialists have a more intelligent answer than my specialists despite the fact that we know that we have differing worldviews and thus presuppositions in keeping with those worldviews.The thing that we really need to determine is, which side’s answers are more in keeping with reality – creation or evolution? Which is the truth. They can’t both be. There are no DunningKrugerites here as Derwood arrogantly insists, just differing educated opinions.

So lets wade through the multitude of daily evolutionist insults and get to the truth of the matter.

Some do. Some don't. But go tell a doctor that he doesn't know anything, and that you can cure people more effectively with Voodoo, and see how the average doctor responds.


Your analogies are not appropriate. You should rather see it like this: Go to a doctor with another doctor’s opinion on something he already diagnosed differently and see whether his reaction is aggressive and abusive or whether he has a good answer to the other doctor’s differing opinion. That will give you some indication of his level of self confidence in his own diagnosis. It’ll give you insight into everything he does. An aggressive response would usually only occur if he is insecure about himself.

You're thinking i might be dishonest though. That, to me, is a lot worse. Honesty is one of my principles.


Well then you should really stop accusing me of dishonesty because honesty is likewise one of my principles that I stand firmly by. My differing opinions could only be taken as dishonesty if I didn’t believe what I was saying and wanted you to believe something that I knew to be untrue.

As soon as I don’t know what to say and cannot even look up and work out what to say, I shall say ‘I don’t know’. Ok?
Yes, ok, but you haven't done so in the past.


Like I have stated, if I have no clue, I don’t answer but you won’t know the difference because I often leave out lots of replies in long posts as well.

If that's true, then i take that back and apologize.


Thank you. It is true.

I agree that such a thing would happen if speciation caused a net reduction of alleles.

What if we show you that such a thing doesn't happen?


I’d be very interested to see how you would demonstrate that. Please show me.

You haven't answered to any of my big lettered questions yet, i don't know why it would work this time...

Your big lettered questions always give me the feeling I am being shouted at and I don’t respond well to that. Like I say, give me your examples of allelic increase and we can discuss them. I’m very interested to see.
So if a single species didn't get divided, it could evolve with no limits whatsoever, in your view. Right?


I don’t believe anything accidental and thus random, such as mutations, even with natural selection thrown in, is capable of producing new information and thus real uphill evolution.






-------
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: 01:57 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:16 AM on December 1, 2009 :
Apoapsis

So, you are saying that as time goes on, creationism predicts there is less allelic variation in a population.  Correct?


Yes, that’s correct.




OK, Lenski started with a single bacterium, it's divisions were separated in to individual lines which lived completely isolated from each other.  At the end of 10,000 generations, 26 single insertion mutations were seen amoung the various lines.  That insertion represents an increase in the amount of information in the genome.  In three of those lines, there was a significant benefit from the single random insertion that allowed them to metabolize maltose.

Quote from Apoapsis at 07:51 AM on July 18, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 01:55 AM on July 18, 2009 :
E coli K-12 has 4,639,221 base pairs.

Insert another and you have 4,639,222.  An increase in information.


Go ahead, deceive yourself.




   Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
   Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski

   Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

   Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)

   Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.


By sticking with reality. . .


So, evolution predict an increase in allelic diversity over time.  Creationism predicts a decrease.  A clear Yes/No criteria with clear sets of data to resolve the problem.

Evolution wins.


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:17 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There, Lester. Apoapsis demonstrated that the prediction from Creationism was wrong.

Now what?

I believe it's much more arrogant to talk about things you don't understand with the intention to override the much more educated opinions from those who have seriously studied the subject.[/color]
The problem is, Wisp, that I am overriding with the opinions of qualified experts with opposing presuppositions to the presuppositions of those that you happen to agree with.
You use unqualified guys (that not only don't agree with most scientists, but they don't even agree among themselves), and nitpick from the qualified ones.
You even nitpick from Darwin!

You nitpick from Behe, who actually believes in Evolution, and the millions of years.

ID trashes YEC and biblical literalism, but you embrace it out of desperation.

None of my opinions are mine alone but are based on many opinions of scientists of various specialities that do not happen to agree with your specialists.
All i ask from "mine" is qualifications, brains and results.

All you ask from yours is that they're YEC, or at least utter some isolated phrases that could support your worldview.

So perhaps it is arrogant of you to think that your specialists have a more intelligent answer than my specialists
Perhaps it's arrogant to call them "yours", but since they aren't worth much i guess not.
despite the fact that we know that we have differing worldviews and thus presuppositions in keeping with those worldviews.
No "pre" suppositions. I always ask for evidence.
I could be complete and utterly wrong about it, but there's no presupposition. And i don't know what you mean when you say "worldview".

The thing that we really need to determine is, which side’s answers are more in keeping with reality – creation or evolution?
Those are not the real two sides.

There are hundreds of "sides".

You can group them into:
1) Realistic.
2) Everything else.

Creationism is just one from the hundreds in 2).

Here's some:

Babylonian Creation Myth

African Creation Myth - Olori

Korean Creation Myth

Japanese Creation Myth

Navajo Creation Myth

Norse Creation Myth

Creation Myth from India

Comanche Creation Myth

Chinese Creation Myth

Chelan Creation Myth

Pima Creation Myth

Mayan Creation Myth

Miwok Creation Myth

Scandinavian (Norse) Creation Myths

Salish Creation Myth

Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth

Hopi Creation Myth

Tahitian Creation Myth

Yokut Creation Myth

Comanche Creation Myth

Egyptian Creation Myths

African - Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths

Micmac Creation Myth

Lakota Creation Myth

Assyrian / Babylonian Creation Myth

Maori Creation Myth

Aztec Creation Myth

Digueno Creation Myth

Apache Creation Myth

Several African Creation Myths

Dakota Creation Myth

Hungarian Creation Myth

Iroquois Creation Myth

Inuit Creation Myth

Huron Creation Myth

Hawaiian Creation Myth

Flying Spaghetti Monster Creation Myth

And there are several Creation Stories: India, Romania, Mongol, etc... Really, hundreds of them.

Yours isn't special.

Which is the truth.
Science (that thing you don't like) doesn't deal with that.
They can’t both be.
They can't both be correct, that's right. You could take any random two myths from my list and say the same thing, and it will still be true.
There are no DunningKrugerites here as Derwood arrogantly insists,
Now you will pretend that you knew what you were talking about when you accused Dunning and Kruger of being evolutionist storytellers. YOU'RE DISHONEST, LESTER.
just differing educated opinions.
Yours isn't. You keep talking about "proof" and "truth", and you're against speculation and imagination and change, and yet you claim to like Science.

So lets wade through the multitude of daily evolutionist insults and get to the truth of the matter.
No, we better stick to the Science. That thing you don't like.

Some do. Some don't. But go tell a doctor that he doesn't know anything, and that you can cure people more effectively with Voodoo, and see how the average doctor responds.
Your analogies are not appropriate.
So you say.
You should rather see it like this: Go to a doctor with another doctor’s opinion on something he already diagnosed differently
You only accept the doctors that tell you that you'll live forever, in spite of what most doctors say and demonstrate.
An aggressive response would usually only occur if he is insecure about himself.
Usually only?

Usually or only?

People also behave aggressively when they are annoyed.
They can be aggressive to a mosquito.

I am. I hate those bastards!
Would you say that they make me feel insecure?

You're thinking i might be dishonest though. That, to me, is a lot worse. Honesty is one of my principles.
Well then you should really stop accusing me of dishonesty because honesty is likewise one of my principles that I stand firmly by.
I clearly see that you don't.

You never stand corrected when we show you your errors in your face. You say that you always understood/knew it (like you'd like to do with Dunning and Kruger).

You're in dire straits yet again with Dunning and Kruger. Saying "I didn't know what i was talking about" is too much for your arrogance to handle, but it's crystal clear for anyone else that you didn't.
My differing opinions could only be taken as dishonesty if I didn’t believe what I was saying and wanted you to believe something that I knew to be untrue.
I'm not talking about your opinions. I talk about lies and artful omissions.

I would love to believe in your honesty. Start being honest right now, and we can forget about the past, if it hurts your pride. I understand it. You're human.
Just stop lying to my face.

If that's true, then i take that back and apologize.
Thank you.
No need. ^_^
I'm always ready to take my claims back when shown i'm wrong.
It is true.
I'm really glad.

You haven't answered to any of my big lettered questions yet, i don't know why it would work this time...
Your big lettered questions always give me the feeling I am being shouted at and I don’t respond well to that.
I never believed you'd answer to those questions (in any size). I just showed you that i was aware of that, and you couldn't hide those omissions from anyone (including yourself).

Like I say, give me your examples of allelic increase and we can discuss them. I’m very interested to see.
Apoapsis did.

You'll move the goalpost and pretend that you were asking for "information increasing alleles".

So if a single species didn't get divided, it could evolve with no limits whatsoever, in your view. Right?
I don’t believe anything accidental and thus random, such as mutations, even with natural selection thrown in, is capable of producing new information and thus real uphill evolution.
If we take your definition of "information", i agree.

Evolution couldn't make that. Not in a million years, not in a billion years, not ever.

But i also believe that the "information" you defined isn't anywhere in any DNA, and it's not necessary.



-------
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: 10:09 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:57 AM on December 1, 2009 :
WISP
I believe it's much more arrogant to talk about things you don't understand with the intention to override the much more educated opinions from those who have seriously studied the subject.


The problem is, Wisp, that I am overriding with the opinions of qualified experts with opposing presuppositions to the presuppositions of those that you happen to agree with.


But I thought you had a PhD of your own?  Can't you provide your own qualified opinions?

And when the opinions of your 'qualified' sources are shown to be in error?


None of my opinions are mine alone but are based on many opinions of scientists of various specialities that do not happen to agree with your specialists.

And what makes their opinions more correct?  Merely tossing out a differing opinion without justifying it with anything other than "Oh, it is just your presuppositions that infomr you that way" is not an opinion worth considering.


So perhaps it is arrogant of you to think that your specialists have a more intelligent answer than my specialists despite the fact that we know that we have differing worldviews and thus presuppositions in keeping with those worldviews.


Worldviews and presuppositions are irrelevant when an opinion is illogical, does not follow from the available data, requires a suspension of observed natural phenomenon, dismisses established science, seeks justification in assertions made by those without relevant qualifications, etc.

See how quickly we forget the lessons of the baraminologists.  

The thing that we really need to determine is, which side’s answers are more in keeping with reality – creation or evolution?

Well, one side hides behind magic and miracles, the other seeks the answers it does not yet have.  I know which side I go with.


Which is the truth. They can’t both be. There are no DunningKrugerites here as Derwood arrogantly insists, just differing educated opinions.


It is not arrogance on my behalf to point out that people like you and timbrx think you know more than you really do.  This is demonstrated time and again.  Look at your claim that 'genetics dopes not support evolution.'  What did you discuss in the thread I started specifically for you to support that claim?  Was it genetics?  No - it was differing opinions on whale evolution, and even THAT showed that you do not understand how to interpret phylogenetic trees.

You dismiss that as 'arrogance' but anyone with the requisite understanding of the issues sees that you are just tossing out unsupported assertions to protect your ideology.  Assertions that, we now see, you merely coopt from your creationist source of the day.  We show you that you Werner is ignorant of basic tenets of evolution, yet you continue to endorse his layughable book.  You are shown that YEC geologist Steve Austin tiotally lied about his 'conversion' to YECism, you think nothing of it.
You are all about YEC cult protection, not at all about 'truth.'

And let us not forget, it was YOU who recently wrote that admitting to error would be 'false humility'.

So lets wade through the multitude of daily evolutionist insults and get to the truth of the matter.


The truth is not an insult. At least not to me.

Some do. Some don't. But go tell a doctor that he doesn't know anything, and that you can cure people more effectively with Voodoo, and see how the average doctor responds.


Your analogies are not appropriate. You should rather see it like this: Go to a doctor with another doctor’s opinion on something he already diagnosed differently and see whether his reaction is aggressive and abusive or whether he has a good answer to the other doctor’s differing opinion. That will give you some indication of his level of self confidence in his own diagnosis. It’ll give you insight into everything he does. An aggressive response would usually only occur if he is insecure about himself.


And so how do you characterize the claim that YECs are "certain" of their positionno matter what, even when shown contradictory evidence?

What we have here is a logical fallacy - the YEC cultist classifies 'aggressiveness' as a sign of a lack of confidence.  This is actually an ad hominem - he is using an irrelevant characteristic of his opponant as the basis for forming his argument.

When I was in the army, my first gunnery sergeant dropped an f-bomb, literally, every few words that he spoke.  He insulted people, he made fun of both his superiors and his subordinates, when challenged, he would react not just aggressively, but often violently, yet he was the most informed and skilled gunnery sergeant that I ever served with.  Were one to adopt the 'they are mean, therefore, they must be wrong' illogical attitude of Lester the PhD then he would have been dismissed.  

Like I have stated, if I have no clue, I don’t answer but you won’t know the difference because I often leave out lots of replies in long posts as well.


Ah, so you HIDE your ignorance.  This must be why yuo so frequently bring up many topics, yet refuse to comment on most of them, while all the time insisting that those issues are REAL issues nonetheless.

I don’t believe anything accidental and thus random, such as mutations, even with natural selection thrown in, is capable of producing new information and thus real uphill evolution.

You don't believe it.  So what?
Why don't you believe it? Your presuppositions and worldview prgram you not to?  That is no reason.
Where's the beef?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:04 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Lester
I don’t believe anything accidental and thus random, such as mutations, even with natural selection thrown in, is capable of producing new information and thus real uphill evolution.
You don't believe it.  So what?
Why don't you believe it? Your presuppositions and worldview prgram you not to?  That is no reason.
Where's the beef?
Actually, under his own definition of "information", he's right on this one.

Information, to him, is something like a shopping list. Something with meaning and purpose.

He hasn't provide a way to detect it, but i daresay there's no such a thing in the DNA.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:20 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:20 AM on December 1, 2009 :
derwood
Lester
I don’t believe anything accidental and thus random, such as mutations, even with natural selection thrown in, is capable of producing new information and thus real uphill evolution.
You don't believe it.  So what?
Why don't you believe it? Your presuppositions and worldview prgram you not to?  That is no reason.
Where's the beef?
Actually, under his own definition of "information", he's right on this one.

Information, to him, is something like a shopping list. Something with meaning and purpose.

He hasn't provide a way to detect it, but i daresay there's no such a thing in the DNA.




Unfortunately, real scientists do not get to look at things with their own idiosyncratic terms and definitions for the sole purpose of being able to dismiss that which counters their beliefs.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:48 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course, of course. We know such a definition has no use in Biology. But Lester can define "information" in any way he likes. Like Humpty Dumpty.

I'm ok with that. He (or his kind) will never detect anything like that in the DNA, so it's over.

If we accept his definition, we can finally tell him to shut up until he shows that anyone has detected it.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:56 AM on December 1, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You use unqualified guys (that not only don't agree with most scientists, but they don't even agree among themselves), and nitpick from the qualified ones.
You even nitpick from Darwin!

You nitpick from Behe, who actually believes in Evolution, and the millions of years.

ID trashes YEC and biblical literalism, but you embrace it out of desperation.

Wow Wisp, you sure are desperate to convince me that only misplaced loyalties are the cause of my dissension from the mainstream. Unqualified guys? Now you’re really grasping at straws. Darwin believed in Lamarckism until his death so his knowledge of genetics was non-existent. Nitpicking Darwin is easy. Half of what you’re saying here seems to be pure drivel and desperation – so you’re wasting space.
All i ask from "mine" is qualifications, brains and results.

Me too.
Perhaps it's arrogant to call them "yours", but since they aren't worth much i guess not.

What was that about nitpicking?
No "pre" suppositions. I always ask for evidence.

No, unfortunately you have presuppositions that are part of your worldview. You interpret the evidence within that framework. We all have the same evidence.
I could be complete and utterly wrong about it, but there's no presupposition. And i don't know what you mean when you say "worldview".

You are, and your presuppositions according to your worldview are that one creature is capable of turning into an altogether different one with no barriers over millions of years with no intelligent input whatsoever. You are of the ‘no plan’ persuasion.
Those are not the real two sides.

There are hundreds of "sides".

You can group them into:
1) Realistic.
2) Everything else.
Here's some:

Babylonian Creation Myth

African Creation Myth - Olori

Korean Creation Myth

Japanese Creation Myth

Navajo Creation Myth
Bla bla bla bla

You’re complicating the matter on purpose Wisp. There are only two sides –creator or no creator. Who the creator might be is irrelevant to the basic argument. Throw all your ‘myths’ aside and don’t boggle your little brain about them. When you get to the point that you realize that intelligence is required for what exists then you can take a little walk to the theology department and decide who has the most feasible creation story.
and you're against speculation and imagination and change, and yet you claim to like Science.

Yes I like the evidential, experimental, repeatable stuff not the imaginary confabulated big fat stories that anybody can make up.
Like I say, give me your examples of allelic increase and we can discuss them. I’m very interested to see.
You'll move the goalpost and pretend that you were asking for "information increasing alleles".

Your problem is that you can’t apparently see that a mutation is a copying mistake; not by its very nature, an improvement. Some mistakes just happen to be useful under certain environmental conditions. That is not the same as new alleles or new information and it doesn’t begin to explain where the original alleles came from.
Your presuppositions are showing.
But i also believe that the "information" you defined isn't anywhere in any DNA, and it's not necessary.


Well we still know that DNA doesn’t form naturally anywhere even if you put all the correct ingredients together in the same vicinity under any imaginable conditions – the nucleotide bases have to be lined up to make functional proteins and the correct proteins need to be coded for in combination with all the other correct functional proteins and enzymes required for biochemical pathways. There needs to be an overall body plan and everything needs to work together for the organism’s survival. If you think that occurs naturally with no plan then you are lost in space and all this hogwash and fluff doesn’t impress me in the least.

You’re dishonest Wisp –to yourself. You probably can’t even see it because you’ve convinced yourself that you don’t lie. Fatal error. I don’t believe you.    






-------
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: 07:08 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You’re complicating the matter on purpose Wisp. There are only two sides –creator or no creator.
If that is your stance, then stop whining about how the bible is evidence for creation and it being the inerrant word of god. If the specific myth is indeed part of your argument (i.e. that creation as described in the christian bible) then your point is, as usual, nothing more than trying to worm you way out of point that you don't like but have nothing intelligent to say about.
Throw all your ‘myths’ aside and don’t boggle your little brain about them...
Lester, stop being an arse. You accuse people like Derwood of being obnoxious and then you come out with this nonsense. GROW UP!
Yes I like the evidential, experimental, repeatable stuff not the imaginary confabulated big fat stories that anybody can make up.
What is your opinion on the Higgs Boson, Supersymmetry and string theory (Science or not?)



-------
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: 07:26 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:08 AM on December 2, 2009 :

Your problem is that you can’t apparently see that a mutation is a copying mistake; not by its very nature, an improvement. Some mistakes just happen to be useful under certain environmental conditions. That is not the same as new alleles or new information and it doesn’t begin to explain where the original alleles came from.
Your presuppositions are showing.


   Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
   Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski

   Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

   Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)

   Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.



OK for the 8th time, read the bolded part.  

This is an insertion mutation.  Information is added.  The gene that had the insertion is different from the genes in the other isolated strains.

That is a new allele.  

This is where alleles come from.

(Edited by Apoapsis 12/2/2009 at 07:45 AM).


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:44 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:08 AM on December 2, 2009 :
If you think that occurs naturally with no plan then you are lost in space and all this hogwash and fluff doesn’t impress me in the least.


Yeah!

Much better to believe that a preferred tribal deity got bored one day and just willed the universe into existence.  But it took this deity some time - um, lets say, 6 days.  6 24-hour days.  The this deity took a day off for some reason.  Then apparently after resting, this deity went about screwing with its creations - and by screwing around with them I mean putting them through emotional and even physical torture, then killed all but 8 of his bestest ones, and somehow they managed to go from 4 breeding inbreeding pairs to the 6 billion we have today in no more than 4,500 years.  
And during that creation 6 days - get this - this deity took a pile of dirt, breathed on it, and the first fully formed human man popped out!

Isn't that totally awesome!

Like I said - much more rational and reasonable and intellectually satisfying to simply accept that as 10% truth than to actually try to find out what really might have happened....

You’re dishonest Wisp –to yourself. You probably can’t even see it because you’ve convinced yourself that you don’t lie. Fatal error. I don’t believe you.    


What an arrogant prig.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:27 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
This is an insertion mutation.  Information is added.  


Ok, let me repeat. If you add a random letter c to a list of groceries, you do not get information. A mutation remains a defect, a copying error, no matter which way it occurs.
Lenski only ever demonstrated adaptation, a property that appears to be built in for the organism’s survival. His experiments failed to demonstrate an increase in complexity nor any novel structure. The bacteria were not only still bacteria after 20 000 or so generations, they were the same type of bacteria. Where mutation happens to be beneficial it is always environment specific and something is always lost at the molecular level.
This does not account for uphill evolution, not even close.

The gene that had the insertion is different from the genes in the other isolated strains.

That is a new allele.


No, it is a mutated allele. Mutation is what gets past DNA copying correction mechanisms. Mutations are to be avoided not trumpeted as innovation except by people who have no other explanation for life on this planet. For them, mutation must be a good thing.

This is where alleles come from.


No it isn’t - unless you’re an evolutionist in which case it is part of your presuppositions. What biologists of all stripes can demonstrate is survival of the fittest not arrival of the fittest. Observation of adaptation to an environment tells you precisely nothing about how that organism with its alleles came to be there in the first place.
 



-------
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: 10:19 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JIMIRVINE
If that is your stance, then stop whining about how the bible is evidence for creation and it being the inerrant word of god.


The Bible is not evidence for creation. It was inspired by God and written down by people. The only thing we can do in science is decide whether intelligence was or was not necessary for the programs of life found in DNA. After that it is up to the individual to determine which intelligence was responsible.

. If the specific myth is indeed part of your argument (i.e. that creation as described in the christian bible) then your point is, as usual, nothing more than trying to worm you way out of point that you don't like


That is not my intention. What is my intention is to make sure that Wisp doesn’t overcomplicate the matter of what science can determine. There are only two possibilities – intelligent creation or mindless evolution. To write a long list of specific myths is an attempt to obfuscate probably for his own personal entertainment.
I believe it is possible to determine whether there are barriers to variation as the Christian Bible very clearly sets out but I have no idea whether there is any other religion that says there were original and different created kinds in the beginning.

You accuse people like Derwood of being obnoxious


Derwood is obnoxious…or didn’t you notice.

What is your opinion on the Higgs Boson, Supersymmetry and string theory


I think what we need to do in this forum is concentrate on the land mammal to whale story, the reptile to bird story, the frog to prince story and all the other exceedingly entertaining, utterly imaginary evolutionary fables.



-------
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: 10:53 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Bible is not evidence for creation

Then what is you evidence for creation?
After that it is up to the individual to determine which intelligence was responsible.
ooo, that was sneaky Lester! Almost caught us all out with that clever little technique.
There are only two possibilities – intelligent creation or mindless evolution
Wrong! What about the matrix hypothesis? What about us all being a figment of someone's imagination.
I believe it is possible to determine whether there are barriers to variation as the Christian Bible very clearly sets out but I have no idea whether there is any other religion that says there were original and different created kinds in the beginning.

Sorry lester, you don't get to reference the bible when it comes to opining about creation anymore. If it is not evidence for creation, it's not evidence for anything else either.
Derwood is obnoxious…or didn’t you notice.
Once again, you limit the choices where there are further possibilities i.e. That I do not think that derwood is obnoxious. here try one yourself:
You're an ignoramus, or didn't you look in the mirror today? See? Fun isn't it.
I think what we need to do in this forum is concentrate blah blah
i disagree. The question has a direct relevance to your 'point' about how you like science, and how you categorize that which is and that which is not science. the question stands, please answer it.


-------
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: 11:32 AM on December 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:19 AM on December 2, 2009 :

The gene that had the insertion is different from the genes in the other isolated strains.

That is a new allele.


No, it is a mutated allele.


Which is what a new allele is, by definition:
An allele is one of two or more versions of a gene. An individual inherits two alleles for each gene, one from each parent. If the two alleles are the same, the individual is homozygous for that gene. If the alleles are different, the individual is heterozygous. Though the term "allele" was originally used to describe variation among genes, it now also refers to variation among non-coding DNA sequences.

Talking Glossary: Allele

Mutation is what gets past DNA copying correction mechanisms. Mutations are to be avoided not trumpeted as innovation except by people who have no other explanation for life on this planet. For them, mutation must be a good thing.



This is where alleles come from.


No it isn’t - unless you’re an evolutionist in which case it is part of your presuppositions. What biologists of all stripes can demonstrate is survival of the fittest not arrival of the fittest. Observation of adaptation to an environment tells you precisely nothing about how that organism with its alleles came to be there in the first place.


Do you have your new dictionary ready yet?  The ones with different definitions than anyone else uses?


 `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'


Through the Looking Glass


-------
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: 12:16 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
You use unqualified guys (that not only don't agree with most scientists, but they don't even agree among themselves), and nitpick from the qualified ones.
You even nitpick from Darwin!

You nitpick from Behe, who actually believes in Evolution, and the millions of years.

ID trashes YEC and biblical literalism, but you embrace it out of desperation.
Wow Wisp, you sure are desperate to convince me
I would, if i believed i had any chance.
that only misplaced loyalties are the cause of my dissension from the mainstream.
No. Emotional investment.
Unqualified guys? Now you’re really grasping at straws. Darwin believed in Lamarckism until his death so his knowledge of genetics was non-existent.
So what?

To Hell with Darwin!
There. Can we move on?

All i ask from "mine" is qualifications, brains and results.
Me too.
Hahaha! You liar!

You accused Dunning and Kruger of being evolutionist story tellers, and you didn't even know what you were talking about. Hahahaha!

You didn't ask about their brains, qualifications or even field of study. You thought they believed in Evolution, and you dismissed them.

Dishonesty and fatuousness. Nice combo.

Perhaps it's arrogant to call them "yours", but since they aren't worth much i guess not.
What was that about nitpicking?
Unlike you, i won't pretend to know what you're talking about.

You are, and your presuppositions according to your worldview are that one creature is capable of turning into an altogether different one with no barriers over millions of years with no intelligent input whatsoever.
One creature? Evolving? Living for millions of years?

Hahaha! Silly Lester. Dishonest Lester.

Not only you don't believe that (thus you're dishonest), but the part you did believe about what you wrote ("no barriers") is wrong.

Creatures can't evolve wheels or nuclear energy. The unlikeliness makes it a barrier.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Those are not the real two sides.

There are hundreds of "sides".
You’re complicating the matter on purpose Wisp. There are only two sides –creator or no creator.
Then why do you oppose the "millions of years"?

Actually, why do you oppose Evolution?

A creator could have made the Universe and primitive life. Evolution AND creationism would be both true.

Stop lying, Lester.

Who the creator might be is irrelevant to the basic argument.
It's absolutely relevant when you're trying to decide what counts as evidence for and against.

Geology gives us lots of evidence against your little god.

JimIrvine
Lester
There are only two possibilities – intelligent creation or mindless evolution
Wrong! What about the matrix hypothesis? What about us all being a figment of someone's imagination.
Exactly.

Besides in several creation myths the creation is something incidental. Not really intended.

Like the Chinese creation myth:
In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again.

When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and on the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth. According to some versions of the Pan Gu legend, his tears flowed to make rivers and radiance of his eyes turned into thunder and lighting. When he was happy the sun shone, but when he was angry black clouds gathered in the sky. One version of the legend has it that the fleas and lice on his body became the ancestors of mankind.
No intelligent design. There was a creation, but no intention or purpose. This story is just as likely as yours, Lester. It poses exactly the same threat to the ToE.

Perhaps you don't descend from apes after all. Perhaps you descend from lice.

Throw all your ‘myths’ aside and don’t boggle your little brain about them.
Hahahaha! Man! xD

Condescension doesn't suit you.

You have the lowest IQ in this forum.

Wanna bet?

When you get to the point that you realize that intelligence is required for what exists then you can take a little walk to the theology department and decide who has the most feasible creation story.
Then shut up about the age of the Earth, because it wouldn't make a difference.

And the feasibility of the best creation story (which would be that machines created the Matrix we live in), doesn't make it right OR scientific.

and you're against speculation and imagination and change, and yet you claim to like Science.
Yes I like the evidential, experimental, repeatable stuff not the imaginary confabulated big fat stories that anybody can make up.
I won't bother to try to educate you anymore. Can't be done. You're hopeless. You don't have a clue about what Science is.

Here's repeatable: Dig.

Like I say, give me your examples of allelic increase and we can discuss them. I’m very interested to see.
You'll move the goalpost and pretend that you were asking for "information increasing alleles".
Your problem is that you can’t apparently see that a mutation is a copying mistake;
Your problem is that you can't apparently see that that's just name calling.

You're lost in a world made by words. Words is all you have.
not by its very nature, an improvement.
Blah blah blah blah.
Some mistakes just happen to be useful under certain environmental conditions.
Exactly. And that's what this is all about, silly!
That is not the same as new alleles
There are millions of new alleles. Everywhere.
or new information
I agree. Under your definition of "information", there's no new information. No new item in the shopping list. Under your definition of "information" you will never read in my posts that i've written about an increase.
In fact, there's no "old information" either.
and it doesn’t begin to explain where the original alleles came from.
Hahaha! Yes, indeed.

So?

But i also believe that the "information" you defined isn't anywhere in any DNA, and it's not necessary.
Well we still know that DNA doesn’t form naturally anywhere even if you put all the correct ingredients together in the same vicinity under any imaginable conditions
HAHAHAHAHA!

Man!! I was drinking! I nearly spit it all!

DNA forms naturally all the time, everywhere! Look at any living thing!

– the nucleotide bases have to be lined up to make functional proteins and the correct proteins need to be coded for in combination with all the other correct functional proteins and enzymes required for biochemical pathways. There needs to be an overall body plan and everything needs to work together for the organism’s survival. If you think that occurs naturally with no plan then you are lost in space and all this hogwash and fluff doesn’t impress me in the least.
Looks like you forgot what the subject was.
You’re dishonest Wisp –to yourself.
I hope you're wrong.
You probably can’t even see it because you’ve convinced yourself that you don’t lie. Fatal error. I don’t believe you.
Well, you can only lie if you know that what you say is false... So no, i don't lie.


(Edited by wisp 12/2/2009 at 12:26 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: 12:26 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:19 AM on December 2, 2009 :
Apoapsis
This is an insertion mutation.  Information is added.  


Ok, let me repeat. If you add a random letter c to a list of groceries, you do not get information.

Why would a PhD -holding scientist like you continue to rely on inapt analogies?
Do you really think genetics works just like the english language?

Are you really that shallow?

Or that desperate?

A mutation remains a defect, a copying error, no matter which way it occurs.


And if that 'error' produces a benefit?

I recall that you did not fare too well on the p450 allele thread - I was easily able to demolish each of your supposed 'problems' for that insertion not being an example of added information.

Shall I bring it to the top to remind everyone?


Lenski only ever demonstrated adaptation, a property that appears to be built in for the organism’s survival.

Adaptation that was the result of random mutations.  Imagine that...

Who did you crib your 'rebuttal' from this time?  AiG?  CreationWiki?  Werner, the guy whose parents must have dies the second he was born?
His experiments failed to demonstrate an increase in complexity nor any novel structure. The bacteria were not only still bacteria after 20 000 or so generations, they were the same type of bacteria. Where mutation happens to be beneficial it is always environment specific and something is always lost at the molecular level.


Of course a mutation's effect is environment specific.  Duh.  And your claim of a loss no matter what is just another empty claim.

This does not account for uphill evolution, not even close.


Do you have any empirical evidence for Divine Creation - a man from dirt?

Anything?


The gene that had the insertion is different from the genes in the other isolated strains.

That is a new allele.


No, it is a mutated allele.


Ah - the YECidiosyncratic definition game is in full effect - it is almost as if Lester the science PhD guy thinks that nobody else knows what science words mean or how to look things up if they don't.  It is because he is obnoxious and arrogant and prideful...



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:45 PM on December 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As one can see, the last YEC that claimed that macroevolution is a myth did not do so well.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:18 AM on December 11, 2009 | 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.