Re: Redux: Should a Critique of Evolution be Allowed?
R.Dean
>
>> But unless you> believe all organisms were designed, it seems to me you have an
>>> obligation to identify a way, apart from your personal incredulity, to
>>> identify what things were designed and what things were naturally
>>> evolved.
>>
>> There is a great amount of variation built in most of the various
>> species. So, it's possible to select certain suits of genes for
>> human purposes. Dog are a prime example. Some were bred for hunting
>> others for guards, etc. They are bred for various sizes and shapes. But
>> these genes which express for etwas already exist, they are simply
>> selected out. I see no reason this cannot happen in the wild. But
>> mit natural (wild) species, their variety within the species is not
>> so varied. On a bell chart most wild species would be at or near the
>> apex, but there would be a few outlanders.
>> >
>
> A domestic species is a wild species that someone takes home with
> them. True, many of these species were taken home by people a very
> long time ago, but there isn't any special reason to think that once
> they arrived at a dwelling they suddenly got more genetic diversity
> because they weren't "wild" anymore.
>
That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>
> Domestic dogs came from wolves. According to your theory wolves must
> have genetic variance that allows them to look like anything from an
> saluki to a shitzu. Where is your evidence that this is so?
>
The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
(wolves).
Humans select out the genetic traits we desire.
Ernest Major
<R.d...@gmail.com> writes
>On 8/19/2010 1:49 PM, Inez wrote:
>>
>>> But unless you> believe all organisms were designed, it seems to
>>>me you have an
>>>> obligation to identify a way, apart from your personal incredulity, to
>>>> identify what things were designed and what things were naturally
>>>> evolved.
>>>
>>> There is a great amount of variation built in most of the various
>>> species. So, it's possible to select certain suits of genes for
>>> human purposes. Dog are a prime example. Some were bred for hunting
>>> others for guards, etc. They are bred for various sizes and shapes. But
>>> these genes which express for etwas already exist, they are simply
>>> selected out. I see no reason this cannot happen in the wild. But
>>> mit natural (wild) species, their variety within the species is not
>>> so varied. On a bell chart most wild species would be at or near the
>>> apex, but there would be a few outlanders.
>>> >
>>
>> A domestic species is a wild species that someone takes home with
>> them. True, many of these species were taken home by people a very
>> long time ago, but there isn't any special reason to think that once
>> they arrived at a dwelling they suddenly got more genetic diversity
>> because they weren't "wild" anymore.
>>
>That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
>we find in domesticated dogs of today.
While I suspect that recombination within a gene pool can achieve more
than generally realised, how do you know that additional diversity was
not subsequently added by mutation?
>>
>> Domestic dogs came from wolves. According to your theory wolves must
>> have genetic variance that allows them to look like anything from an
>> saluki to a shitzu. Where is your evidence that this is so?
>>
>The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
>information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
>(wolves).
While I suspect that recombination within a gene pool can achieve more
than generally realised, how do you know that additional diversity was
not subsequently added by mutation?
>
>Humans select out the genetic traits we desire.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Inez
option.
> Humans select out the genetic traits we desire.-
So you say. But again, where is your evidence? Adult wolves are
certainly never as small as shitzus, how then do you select the shitzu-
sized wolves for becoming shitzus? I admit up front that I don't know
how much domestic dog DNA is different than wolf DNA, but I strongly
suspect that you don't know either.
Prof Weird
> On 8/19/2010 1:49 PM, Inez wrote:
>
> >> But unless you> believe all organisms were designed, it seems to me you have an
> >>> obligation to identify a way, apart from your personal incredulity, to
> >>> identify what things were designed and what things were naturally
> >>> evolved.
>
> >> There is a great amount of variation built in most of the various
> >> species. So, it's possible to select certain suits of genes for
> >> human purposes. Dog are a prime example. Some were bred for hunting
> >> others for guards, etc. They are bred for various sizes and shapes. But
> >> these genes which express for etwas already exist, they are simply
> >> selected out. I see no reason this cannot happen in the wild. But
> >> mit natural (wild) species, their variety within the species is not
> >> so varied. On a bell chart most wild species would be at or near the
> >> apex, but there would be a few outlanders.
>
> > A domestic species is a wild species that someone takes home with
> > them. True, many of these species were taken home by people a very
> > long time ago, but there isn't any special reason to think that once
> > they arrived at a dwelling they suddenly got more genetic diversity
> > because they weren't "wild" anymore.
>
> >
> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
Ah, ye olde festering 'it is IMPOSSIBLE for new variants to arise !!
11!!!!1!' argument.
The silly idea that all variation seen today is just 'filtering out'
from an ancestor with near infinite diversity.
Observations of REALITY show such an idea is wrong -
The silversword alliance of plants in Hawaii range from herbs and
vines to trees - yet their ancestors were tarweeds.
Dogs have more variation in their skull shape THAN THE ENTIRE ORDER OF
CARNIVORA !
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/intraspecific-m.html#more
"Morphometrics basically consists of taking digital photos of e.g.
bones from different angles, and then marking the same landmarks on
homologous bones across a big group. Then you can quantitatively
compare the differences in shape, independent of things like body
size. This is a much more sophisticated analysis than is possible with
just calipers, where you can only get length, width, etc.
A previous study had noted that the skull variation in dogs was bigger
than the variation in the family Canidae, but the incredible result of
Drake’s study was that the variation in shape of dog skulls was bigger
than the variation in shape across the entire order Carnivora, which
is 60 million years old and includes even mostly-aquatic forms."
So, by your 'logic', one must assume that wolves evolved from dogs,
since wolves have the much smaller range of skull shapes, and it is
'IMPOSSIBLE !!1!!11!!!' for variation to increase ?
> > Domestic dogs came from wolves. According to your theory wolves must
> > have genetic variance that allows them to look like anything from an
> > saluki to a shitzu. Where is your evidence that this is so?
>
> The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
> information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
> (wolves).
Too bad for you that mutation and recombination can generate MORE
diversity ...
> Humans select out the genetic traits we desire.
And competition in nature (between members of the same species and the
environment) selects out traits that work - ie, fit best in that
environment.
So, in your world, wolves can look like anything from a St Bernard to
a chihuahua to a shitzu, but all that variance is magically hidden,
and only manifests when humans select the attributes they want ?
Himself
Your claim is ridiculous. Humans cannot select a trait unless it is
*expressed* in an organism's phenotype. If you had even the most basic
understanding of biology you would understand this. If wolves had the
alleles that are expressed in dogs, why aren't they expressed in
wolves? Once again: are you ever going to support *anything* you say?
You've just told another just-so story and failed to provide the
slightest bit of evidence to support it. Have you investigated the
genetic diversity of wolves? Do you have any idea how many alleles
exist at loci affecting traits such as size, coloration, muzzle shape,
or any of a host of other traits? If you actually had such evidence,
you could present it. But, as always when asked to present your
evidence, you will not do so - because you're telling just-so stories.
You don't have any evidence to present.
R.Dean
Can you prove the affirmative?
>>>
>>> Domestic dogs came from wolves. According to your theory wolves must
>>> have genetic variance that allows them to look like anything from an
>>> saluki to a shitzu. Where is your evidence that this is so?
>>>
>> The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
>> information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
>> (wolves).
>
> While I suspect that recombination within a gene pool can achieve more
> than generally realised, how do you know that additional diversity was
> not subsequently added by mutation?
>
Will in New Haven
The fox experiment in Russia more than hints that selecting among
canids for docility brings out other traits that are never expressed
in their wild ancestors. Or at least that it does in foxes and the
traits observed in foxes are some of the same ones observed in dogs.
However, size isn't one of those traits. Breeding normal wolves for
small size just CAN'T get someone like our Samantha Shitzu. However,
the toy breeds seem to share a common heritage that entered the dog
gene pool quite awhile ago but long after they had been domesticated.
Don't tell Dean but that came from a mutation.
--
Will in New Haven
marks...@yahoo.com
Perhaps the original dog ancestor was a lycanthrope ? That would
netaly explain the ability to becom a big range of sizes and shapes.
R.Dean
wolves?
R.Dean
But dogs gone wild over time return to a medium size, tawny color
this is rather common.
>
>> Humans select out the genetic traits we desire.
>
> And competition in nature (between members of the same species and the
> environment) selects out traits that work - ie, fit best in that
> environment.
>
> So, in your world, wolves can look like anything from a St Bernard to
> a chihuahua to a shitzu, but all that variance is magically hidden,
> and only manifests when humans select the attributes they want ?
>
intervention you don't find this happening.
R.Dean
Inez
Some of it through mutation and human selection.
Ernest Major
If you can't prove it why did you make the claim. By making the claim
you were implicitly claiming to be able to prove that particular
negative.
That fact that mutations are observed to occur is evidence that
additional diversity was subsequently added by mutation. I don't have
specifics to hand to I expect that if your looked into the literature
you would find alleles in dogs not known from wolves. But at this point
you might turn to demanding proof of a negative - that an allele is not
present in any individual in the world wide wolf population, nor was
present in the wolf population of (e.g.) 10,000 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Domestic dogs came from wolves. According to your theory wolves must
>>>> have genetic variance that allows them to look like anything from an
>>>> saluki to a shitzu. Where is your evidence that this is so?
>>>>
>>> The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
>>> information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
>>> (wolves).
>>
>> While I suspect that recombination within a gene pool can achieve more
>> than generally realised, how do you know that additional diversity was
>> not subsequently added by mutation?
>>
>Isn't this the same as above?
You made the same claim twice, so I responded to it twice.
>>>
>>> Humans select out the genetic traits we desire.
>>>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Vend
> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
in bacteria.
For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
> The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
> information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
> (wolves).
False claim.
Klaus Hellnick
How the hell can a subset be larger than the set?
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/intraspecific-m.html#more
>
> "Morphometrics basically consists of taking digital photos of e.g.
> bones from different angles, and then marking the same landmarks on
> homologous bones across a big group. Then you can quantitatively
> compare the differences in shape, independent of things like body
> size. This is a much more sophisticated analysis than is possible with
> just calipers, where you can only get length, width, etc.
>
> A previous study had noted that the skull variation in dogs was bigger
> than the variation in the family Canidae, but the incredible result of
> Drake’s study was that the variation in shape of dog skulls was bigger
> than the variation in shape across the entire order Carnivora, which
> is 60 million years old and includes even mostly-aquatic forms."
How the hell can a subset be larger than the set?
Ernest Major
<khelSP...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>> Dogs have more variation in their skull shape THAN THE ENTIRE ORDER OF
>> CARNIVORA !
>
>How the hell can a subset be larger than the set?
You're supposed to read that as "(domestic) dogs have more variation in
their skull shape than (the remainder of) the entire order [of]
Carnivora".
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
>
>>
>The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
>information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
>(wolves).
>
got proof of this? or is this another one of your fairy tales?
bpuharic
>On 8/19/2010 5:08 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <6Agbo.58558$f_3....@newsfe17.iad>, R.Dean
>
>>
>> While I suspect that recombination within a gene pool can achieve more
>> than generally realised, how do you know that additional diversity was
>> not subsequently added by mutation?
> >
>I cannot prove it wasn't added, but this would be proving a negative.
>Can you prove the affirmative?
yeah. we cans see mutations happen in the lab.
where's your proof that this never happens?
R.Dean
ancient wolves provided the diversity we find in domesticated dogs.
But to your point, present day dogs have hundred, maybe thousands of
heritable genetic diseases and disorders that wolves in the wild don't
have. So, yes deleterious mutations must be responsible for a host of
genetic disorders and diseases that know to exist.
>,<
<snip>
Himself
So here are your claims:
(1) Wolves possess all the same alleles as do dogs.
(2) These alleles didn't arise through mutation in dogs. Instead, dogs
inherited these alleles from their wolf ancestors.
(3) Somehow recombination prevents the thousands of traits seen in
dogs, but not wolves, from being phenotypically expressed in wolves.
(4) Early man, in order to create dogs, was somehow able to select
these traits in wolves - even though these traits were prevented by
recombination from being expressed.
(5) Somehow recombination *doesn't* prevent these traits from being
phenotypically expressed in dogs.
Would you care to explain how that works?
> If you had even the most basic
>> understanding of biology you would understand this. If wolves had the
>> alleles that are expressed in dogs, why aren't they expressed in
>> wolves? Once again: are you ever going to support *anything* you say?
>>
>> You've just told another just-so story and failed to provide the
>> slightest bit of evidence to support it. Have you investigated the
>> genetic diversity of wolves? Do you have any idea how many alleles
>> exist at loci affecting traits such as size, coloration, muzzle shape,
>> or any of a host of other traits? If you actually had such evidence,
>> you could present it. But, as always when asked to present your
>> evidence, you will not do so - because you're telling just-so stories.
>> You don't have any evidence to present.
I notice you failed to answer my questions concerning the evidence you
based your claim upon. Is that because you forgot, or is it because
you didn't really have any evidence when you made your claim? I'm
betting on the second possibility, because you've provided not one
speck of evidence to support any of the claims that you've
repeated.... and repeated.... and repeated....
Himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
from the article:
"Forty genes were found to differ between the domesticated and
non-domesticated farm-raised foxes, although about 2,700 genes
differed between the wild foxes and either set of farm-raised foxes.
The authors did not analyze the functional implications of the gene
expression differences they observed."
So there existed well over 2000 genetic differences between
farm-raised and wild foxes even before the experiment began, and forty
(no doubt highly significant) genetic differences between the
domesticated and the non-domesticated farm-raised foxes.
Will in New Haven
And a neutral (in their current circumstances) mutation has led to the
many very small breeds that exist now. The potential for very large
size seems to exist in the wild.
R.Dean
> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
>> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>
> I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
> in bacteria.
> For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>
previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
starvation. A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
change diet in order to survive was built in.
Robert Camp
> On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
> >> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>
> > I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
> > in bacteria.
> > For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>
> >
> So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
> previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
>
> There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
> pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
> placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
> was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
> random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
> instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
> starvation. A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
> change diet in order to survive was built in.
No, that's not a more reasonable explanation, it posits a multiplicity
of assumptions that is unevidenced and unwarrantedm (depending
especially upon your use of the word "built").
A more reasonable explanation is that there were polymorphisms within
the existing bacterial population that conferred upon some few the
capacity to utilize nylon as a resource. Genetic variation has been
explained to you countless times at this point, how long do you intend
to ignore the evidence pertinent to these issues?
RLC
Prof Weird
> On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
> >> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>
> > I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
> > in bacteria.
> > For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>
> >
> So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
> previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
The ability to digest nylon oligomers is novel, due to the FACT that
nylon oligomers have an unnatural chemical bond.
It is NOT an example of an enzyme merely changing specificity, or
'changing their diet'.
The bacteria living in the pond ate things all other bacteria did, but
the ability to digest the nylon oligomers in their pool gave them an
advantage - they could utilize a very abundant (at least in their
pool) food source nothing else could. AFAIK, they can still eat
everything they could before.
> There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
> pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
> placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
> was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
> random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
> instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
> starvation.
Not really, given the fact that bacteria can mutate their DNA while
not growing - it is a stress response with them.
They can stay on the plate for weeks, not dividing, but can still
mutate (they have to maintain their DNA, and thus the chance of a
mutation occurring even while the cell is not dividing exists).
Once a useful mutation arises, they begin dividing in earnest. What
this looks like is the plate appears uninhabitated for weeks, then
suddenly colonies spring up. Kinda like what the researchers you were
talking about noticed ...
Had the mutations happened instantaneously, there would have been
nylonase positive colonies visible almost immediately.
> A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
> change diet in order to survive was built in.
Nope - the most reasonable and demonstrated explanation is the fact
that mutations can be beneficial.
As observed when bacteria evolved the ability to digest substrates
that didn't exist on Earth until a few decades ago.
This requires more than a mere 'change in diet' - it requires altering
one (or several) enzymes.
The 'capacity to change diet' is via mutation and selection. One of
the main engines of EVOLUTION.
Himself
>On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:
>> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
>>> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>>
>> I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
>> in bacteria.
>> For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
> >
>So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
>previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
>
>There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
>pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
>placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
>was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
>random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
>instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
>starvation. A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
>change diet in order to survive was built in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
from the article:
"the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts
were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other
Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and
not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon
byproducts.[1]"
You are disputing this observational evidence. You are claiming that a
strain of pseudomonas aeruginosa used in some unnamed and un-cited
experiment already possessed the ability to digest nylon, and
therefore was producing nylon digesting enzymes. (Bacteria are haploid
so if they possessed this ability, it would have been expressed)
But you don't provide a citation so we can check whether your claim is
true. Until you provide the evidence, you are just making another one
in your long series of unsupported claims. You've never supported any
claim yet. Why not start acting like the fact-loving realist you claim
to be and start supplying evidence for your claims? You can do it
quite easily. Just provide a citation to the article or study you
claim to be referencing.
bpuharic
>On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:
>> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
>>> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>>
>> I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
>> in bacteria.
>> For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
> >
>So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
>previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
>
>There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
>pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
>placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
>was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
>random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
>instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
>starvation. A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
>change diet in order to survive was built in.
nope. the bacteria in a non nylon environment had an advantage over
the ones that could if nylon was not availble
you seem to forget something...we can check the genomes of these
organisms before and after the change. we can find the mutations. you
simply IGNORE data. that's what creationists do
IGNORE DATA
Prof Weird
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think he's talking about this paper :
"Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas
aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution", Prijamabada ID, Negoro
S, Yomo T, Urabe I, Appl Envir Micro 1995 May, 61(5): 2020-2025
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7646041
Took cultures of bacteria known to be unable to grow on nylon
oligomers (Ahx) - in this case, Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO, from New
Zealand IIRC.
Plated on minimal media + Ahx. Grew plates at 30 degrees. After 9
days, hypergrowing colonies developed.
Same number of bacteria plated on minimal media without Ahx = no
colonies at all.
If there were rare bacteria with the ability to digest Ahx, colonies
would have shown up much earlier on the Ahx plates
(the researchers plated several different dilutions).
Himself
Thanks. Maybe this is why Ron is so reluctant to present the evidence
that supposedly supports his claims. If he had provided a citation to
this paper it would have been immediately clear that it refutes,
rather than supports, his assertion.
R.Dean
On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
>> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
> I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
> in bacteria.
> For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>
So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
starvation. A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
change diet in order to survive was built in.
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/3717604
cassandra
> On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:
> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
> >> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
> > I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
> > in bacteria.
> > For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>
> So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
> previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
>
> There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
> pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
> placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
> was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
> random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
> instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
> starvation. A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
> change diet in order to survive was built in.
>
> http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/3717604
Your "could be" is too generic. The problem you ignore is that nylon
was only recently invented, and its chemical structure is very unlike
their ordinary food. The way you interpret the evidence suggests you
expect these little buggers to have a "built-in capacity" to digest
anything and everything, manmade or not. I enjoyed Andromeda Strain
as fiction, but it isn't a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
So supposing that incontrovertable fossil links showing the change
into a new species was found you would still be screaming "design" and
"it was built in".
Same old, same old that we see from creationists all the time.
Yes I know. "I am not a creationist (wink wink)".
Harry K
R.Dean
Creationism is based upon the Genesis account. So, Harry I challenge you
to show where have I turned to Genesis for or any other Biblical
account for evidence or support.
> Harry K
>
Will in New Haven
You haven't. You have simply failed to provide any evidence or
support.
Ernest Major
<R.d...@gmail.com> writes
Most people here (talk.origins) have a wider conception of creationism
that just Biblical creationists, especially just Biblical creationists
of the young earth kind. For example Vedic creationists are recognised
here as a subset of creationist.
You haven't been particularly forthcoming with what you believe, but you
might be a creationist of the progressive creationist kind, or of the
old earth kind. You certainly appear to be a creationist of the
"anything but evolution" kind.
--
alias Ernest Major
Inez
Maybe you should get around to doing that. Where is evidence of your
designers?
RAM
It has become abundantly clear; that for this hard nosed rational
engineer "looks designed" is the "hard empirical facts" he relies on
for his assertion of "looks designed!"
R.Dean
Eyes are a design - for sight, immune systems are a design which
wards off and attacks by invading pathogens. Flippers are a design
and they are fitted to serve a purpose. The human hand is a design
for grasping and manipulating.
Darwin was very familiar and quite impressed by Wm. Paley's "Evidence".
But later he saw Paley's arguments as a challenge. Darwin and his
followers had an agenda: design had to go. The easiest way overcome the
very idea of design, is to deny the existence of design and purpose. And
to find an alternative to Paley's explanation.
Sorry, about taking so long to get back. Had a day long meeting preceded
by and two sleepless nights, I had catch-up work to be done _before_ the
meeting.
Thank you: Inez
Regards, Ron
R.Dean
> On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:
> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
>>> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>
>> I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
>> in bacteria.
>> For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>>
> So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
> previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
>
> There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a strain of
> placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a food stuff
> was available. If this was the result of _random_ mutation and selection
> random mutations would have to produce the necessary enzyme almost
> instantaneous before the earliest generations of bacteria died out from
> starvation. A more reasonable explanation could be the capacity to
> change diet in order to survive was built in.
>
> http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/3717604
>
>>> The fact that dogs descended from wolves is evidence that the raw
>>> information for this diversity must have existed in the original stock
>>> (wolves).
>
>> False claim.
>
>
>
>
R.Dean
about "built in" facility for digesting the byproduct of nylon
manufacturing processes. I have _no_ problem with genetic variation
where some bacterium had evolved the capacity to extract nutrition from
a new source and survive.
Any design which meets virtually any contingency would be considered an
elegant solution.
>
> RLC
>
Inez
Um...you're welcome, but none of that was responsive to what I asked.
If you want to call biological things "designed" then all very well
and good, but I'm asking what evidence you have of a designer. Are
you saying there was no designer? Can you clarify what it is you
actually believe? Because as of now there are no known designers who
could make a giraffe, and the speed of light being what it is it
doesn't seem likely they came from another planet.
Inez
mutation.
RAM
Purpose is a slippery contextually ambiguous word as you use here.
Science cannot divine the purpose of the giraffe but can for eyes,
hands, flippers, immune systems and other organic functions.
It is clear you think the giraffe was designed for a purpose. Do you
have some evidence for what the purpose of a giraffe serves. Of
course not?
You constantly engage in bafflegarb ideas and think they are
insightful when they are nothing but empty rhetoric and useless to
science. Science requires evidence and you have offered absolutely no
scientific evidence for who, where, when, why, or how the giraffe was
designed. But because you have a boneheaded idea that "looks
designed" is clear evidence of design you keep repeating your design
mantra as if it is worth entertaining when all you have is "looks
designed, looks designed, looks designed."
All snow flakes "look designed." Why, when, where, how, and who
designed them? Why nature of course. The same damn thing that
designed us and other biota.
Your evidenceless posts are becoming a large monument to your
boneheadedness. Can you not see that or is your obtuseness by
design.
> And
> to find an alternative to Paley's explanation.
Silly and profoundly stupid because it assumes science is a collective
agenda that is anti-theological.
It also exposes your lack of creationist motives as a lie.
cassandra
Then what genetic variations DO you have problems with? How do you
distinguish them from those genetic variations you DON'T have problems
with?
> Any design which meets virtually any contingency would be considered an
> elegant solution.
Actually such a design would be considered a miraculous solution,
which is the point I made upthread.
Prof Weird
Designed by who ? For what role ? And how, EXACTLY, did you
'determine' any of that ?
Those proto-giraffes that were not 'well fitted' for their environs
died more often than the 'more fitted'.
End result after many generations - giraffes 'well fitted' to their
environs, the classic ILLUSION of design.
Initiating Panglossian gibbertwittery :
> Eyes are a design - for sight, immune systems are a design which
> wards off and attacks by invading pathogens. Flippers are a design
> and they are fitted to serve a purpose. The human hand is a design
> for grasping and manipulating.
And noses are a design for supporting spectacles, and legs are a
design for wearing pants.
You are like a sentient mudpuddle deducing that since the hole you
live in fits you PERFECTLY, it must have been 'designed' with you in
mind.
You can confused 'what X does' with 'what X was designed for' -
function for purpose/design.
Very common error amongst the addle-pated droolers that MUST have
Designers/Gods/MSMs behind everything that is beyond their
comprehension.
Standard evolution can produce what you are calling 'designs' quite
easily.
Initiating standard creotardic paranoid conspiracy :
> Darwin was very familiar and quite impressed by Wm. Paley's "Evidence".
> But later he saw Paley's arguments as a challenge.
You 'know' any of that how ?
More likely he noticed those 'arguments' were hollow, vapid noises
that didn't explain anything
> Darwin and his
> followers had an agenda: design had to go. The easiest way overcome the
> very idea of design, is to deny the existence of design and purpose. And
> to find an alternative to Paley's explanation.
And you 'determined' that Darwin had an agenda HOW ?
His only 'agenda' was to explain what is actually observed in nature
by natural effects - anything else is empty gibberings about
unknowable beings somehow doing stuff for unknowable reasons.
Stuart
As is a bucket of water to its bucket.
> Eyes are a design - for sight, immune systems are a design which
> wards off and attacks by invading pathogens. Flippers are a design
> and they are fitted to serve a purpose.
> The human hand is a design
> for grasping and manipulating.
>
> Darwin was very familiar and quite impressed by Wm. Paley's "Evidence".
> But later he saw Paley's arguments as a challenge. Darwin and his
> followers had an agenda: design had to go.
Ahhh.
The old atheist conspiracy.
It never gets old.
Sorry Mr. Dean, but you are far, far, off the rails now.
<snip>
Stuart
Robert Camp
You don't seem to understand the implications of many of the words you
use. Since you won't address whether English is not your first
language it's difficult to know for sure where the problems in your
usage lie. I still happen to think your intentions are honorable, and
that you don't realize the ambiguity and contradiction you so often
espouse. But it's getting harder all the time not to infer duplicity
on your part.
First, as I suggested above, your use of the word "built" implies a
purposeful agency or intelligence. Saying something is "built-in,"
especially in the context of a discussion of ID, is not equivalent to
saying something was pre-existing. Had you said the "capacity to
change diet" pre-existed in the organism I wouldn't have quibbled
because there would have been no imputation of intelligent agency.
Your use of "built-in," however, implied otherwise.
This is the kind of mistake you make so often (your use of "built-in"
and "design" and "purpose" have all been questionable to the point of
muddled) that it's hard not to interpret much of what you say as
sleight-of-hand, or intellectual superficiality. Your arguments will
be much more comprehensible if you'll just take the time, and care
enough, to learn and use words appropriately.
> Any design which meets virtually any contingency would be considered an
> elegant solution.
It would be, but of course the notion of such a "design" is just as
absurd, unimaginable, and paradoxical as the infinite, omnipotent
source from which it must come.
But you're arguments have nothing to do with religion, right?
RLC
Ralph
He has been there for years but in the last five years he as espoused
the same old crap without acknowledging the refutations.
Garamond Lethe
Are the pathogens designed?
> Flippers are a design and they are fitted
> to serve a purpose. The human hand is a design for grasping and
> manipulating.
Lay your palm flat on the table, fingers spread out.
It's likely you're able to raise (slightly) every finger independently
except your ring finger.
Bit of a botch, that.
>
> Darwin was very familiar and quite impressed by Wm. Paley's "Evidence".
> But later he saw Paley's arguments as a challenge. Darwin and his
> followers had an agenda: design had to go. The easiest way overcome the
> very idea of design, is to deny the existence of design and purpose. And
> to find an alternative to Paley's explanation.
I have a feeling you've not read any Darwin. Where did you pick up this
fascinating little tidbit?
R.Dean
Evolution and Natural Selection crafted design or some intelligent
agency was working behind the scene. On this score I don't pretend to
_know_.
Are
> you saying there was no designer? Can you clarify what it is you
> actually believe?
>
I think that design implies a designer. If it's an intelligence, the ID
of the designer is unknown. There's nothing to suggest the designer is
the God or the Bible.
Because as of now there are no known designers who
> could make a giraffe, and the speed of light being what it is it
> doesn't seem likely they came from another planet.
>
I have no opinion.
R.Dean
enzymes extraordinarily quick to stave off starvation. So, "random"
apparently wasn't very random. The mechanism must have been "in place"
and ready to function extracting nutrients from nylon waste.
So, RANDOM mutation and N.S. doesn't seem up to the task in this situation.
John Harshman
respect to the needs of the organism, going back to the replica-plating
experiments of Luria and Delbruck. So when you say you don't believe it,
others may be excused if they snort derisively.
Inez
creature capable of designing giraffes would have left some sort of
evidence? A civilization perhaps? Where is this evidence? No where,
because your designers are fictional.
> Are> you saying there was no designer? Can you clarify what it is you
> > actually believe?
>
> >
> I think that design implies a designer. If it's an intelligence, the ID
> of the designer is unknown. There's nothing to suggest the designer is
> the God or the Bible.
There is nothing to suggest it is an actual designer at all.
> Because as of now there are no known designers who> could make a giraffe, and the speed of light being what it is it
> > doesn't seem likely they came from another planet.
>
> I have no opinion.-
Which is extremely suspicious, really. Why don't you have an
opinion? Why doesn't the question of where such a designer might have
come from interest you in the least? Why does the total lack of
evidence of such a designer not carry any weight with you?
I can prove your reasoning wrong with something approaching logic:
If we assume that complex things like giraffe necks require designers,
then by all rights designers require designers. Since there has to be
some non-designer beginning to the designers, we can therefore
conclude that something complicated enough to design a giraffe must be
able to arise by naturalistic processes such as evolution. If that is
the case, then there's no reason why a giraffe neck couldn't arise by
evolution.
Kleuskes & Moos
So something is design because you say it is? DO you have any
objective criteria for calling something, anything, designed?
> It depends upon interpretation as to whether
> Evolution and Natural Selection crafted design or some intelligent
> agency was working behind the scene. On this score I don't pretend to
> _know_.
Would not occams razor oblige you to consider the solution requiring
no unknown (and perchance, unknowable) designers first?
> Are> you saying there was no designer? Can you clarify what it is you
> > actually believe?
>
> >
> I think that design implies a designer. If it's an intelligence, the ID
> of the designer is unknown. There's nothing to suggest the designer is
> the God or the Bible.
I think i just heard you say "Quack". You proclaim feature X of
species Y "design", then postulate some unknown designer, nicely
dressed in enough weaselwords so no one can actually pin your opinions
down and then boldly say "There's nothing to suggest the designer is
the God or the Bible."
The judge in the Dover trial did not buy that. Nor do i.
> Because as of now there are no known designers who> could make a giraffe, and the speed of light being what it is it
> > doesn't seem likely they came from another planet.
>
> I have no opinion.
You are remarkably persistent for someone who does not have an
opinion.
RAM
Just as I have noted. Looks designed does not qualify as scientific
evidence. Do you understand why?
> It depends upon interpretation as to whether
> Evolution and Natural Selection crafted design or some intelligent
> agency was working behind the scene.
Again you employ slippery language like "depends upon interpretation"
which is not what a "hard headed empirical fact oriented person" would
feel comfortable with. So why the sloppy non empirical argument for
design from someone who is so "factually oriented" as you.
Do you understand science or just have read that it is empirical and
fact oriented but don't know what that entails.
To put it bluntly there is no evidence of some intelligent agent
working behind the scenes. Yet you, the "hard headed empirical fact
oriented person" is completely happy with some unseen entity creating
every thing that looks designed and still you deny you are a
creationist. Can you possibly see a problem with this picture? Can
you see that this asserted "hard headed empirical fact oriented
person" doesn't exist when it comes to asserting "some un-evidenced
intelligent agent is possibly working behind the scenes to create
designs."
> On this score I don't pretend to
> _know_.
But yet you see it as something that science should take seriously
when there is absolutely no evidence for the IDer other than "looks
designed."
>
> Are> you saying there was no designer? Can you clarify what it is you
> > actually believe?
>
> >
> I think that design implies a designer.
Who designs snowflakes? And no two are supposed to be alike. The
creativity of the designer is amazing is it not?
> If it's an intelligence, the ID
> of the designer is unknown. There's nothing to suggest the designer is
> the God or the Bible.
>
> Because as of now there are no known designers who> could make a giraffe, and the speed of light being what it is it
> > doesn't seem likely they came from another planet.
>
> I have no opinion.
Yet you have the opinion that it exists and no evidence other than
"looks designed." If one talks like, and asserts like, and delares
like a creationist then . . . . .
bpuharic
>The giraffe is a design, well fitted to it's role in life.
>Eyes are a design - for sight, immune systems are a design which
>wards off and attacks by invading pathogens. Flippers are a design
>and they are fitted to serve a purpose. The human hand is a design
>for grasping and manipulating.
>
>Darwin was very familiar and quite impressed by Wm. Paley's "Evidence".
>But later he saw Paley's arguments as a challenge. Darwin and his
>followers had an agenda: design had to go. The easiest way overcome the
>very idea of design, is to deny the existence of design and purpose. And
>to find an alternative to Paley's explanation.
purpose is absolutely USELESS in science. there is no 'purpose' meter
that enables us to determine 'purpose' is present
of all the wrong headed and useless ideas ever applied to nature,
'purpose' is at the top of the list. it explains
nothing.
bpuharic
> >
>Design is evidence. It depends upon interpretation as to whether
>Evolution and Natural Selection crafted design or some intelligent
>agency was working behind the scene. On this score I don't pretend to
>_know_.
more useless verbiage.
i'm a process engineer. it's my job to implement design. i can either
use natural processes and the laws of nature to do this OR....
i can sit around wating for 'design' to implement a design
which approach do you think works?
>
> Are
>> you saying there was no designer? Can you clarify what it is you
>> actually believe?
> >
>I think that design implies a designer. If it's an intelligence, the ID
>of the designer is unknown. There's nothing to suggest the designer is
>the God or the Bible.
and this is dishonest. the 'designer' is god since no other 'desginer'
is postulated by ID creationiists
Stuart
No.
"design" is something that requires explanation.
>It depends upon interpretation as to whether
The explanation for design depends on evidence.
Wake up Mr. Dean.
Stuart
bpuharic
>>
>Random mutations, in this case, would have to "hit" upon just the right
>enzymes extraordinarily quick to stave off starvation. So, "random"
>apparently wasn't very random. The mechanism must have been "in place"
>and ready to function extracting nutrients from nylon waste.
meaningless. have you ever taken a class in chemistry?
a population of a few hundred billion bacteria... a genome having
rudimentary repair mechanisms...mutations happen.
>So, RANDOM mutation and N.S. doesn't seem up to the task in this situation.
you guys have been saying that for 150 years. you've been wrong
and you've been screaming that 'design' has a meaning and is a
mechanism for causing changes in population
so tell me how i test that useless idea
tell me how it works. otherwise it's garbage
R.Dean
necessary enzymes. These mutations must have come in incredible, immense
swarms. But all DNA has proof-reading molecules which tends
to repress or correct mutational errors. How was this capability defeated?
Remember his was a limited time lab experiment and the only possible
source of nutrients was nylon.
John Harshman
You don't understand. This wasn't a new protein assembled one amino acid
at a time from some random pool. Nylonase apparently began as a single
frame-shift mutation, though I'm sure it was later fine-tuned by
additional point mutations.
Now, some bacteria respond to stress by greatly increasing their
mutation rates. Don't know if that happened in this case, but there is
such a phenomenon. However, the mutations produced at this increased
rate are random, not targeted in the way you imagine. This works for
bacteria because colonies are clones, and one surviving cell is enough
to keep the clone alive.
> But all DNA has proof-reading molecules which tends
> to repress or correct mutational errors. How was this capability defeated?
All mutations have to survive proofreading. Published mutation rates
include only those that survive proofreading, because we don't have any
way to detect a mutation that gets reversed by proofreading enzymes.
> Remember his was a limited time lab experiment and the only possible
> source of nutrients was nylon.
Have you in some way calculated the mutation rate, the number of
mutations that happened during the experiment, and the probability of a
random mutation to that particular genome producing an enzyme that
enables digestion of nylon? Not that I can see. This is all just your
unsupported personal incredulity.
R.Dean
purpose or its method.
Why doesn't the question of where such a designer might have
> come from interest you in the least?
>
I didn't say I have no interest, I simply don't know. I've nothing
to base an opinion on.
Why does the total lack of
> evidence of such a designer not carry any weight with you?
>
Show me there _is_ no design anywhere in nature, and I will have to
admit it. But what better evidence for a designer than design?
>
> I can prove your reasoning wrong with something approaching logic:
>
> If we assume that complex things like giraffe necks require designers,
> then by all rights designers require designers. Since there has to be
> some non-designer beginning to the designers, we can therefore
> conclude that something complicated enough to design a giraffe must be
> able to arise by naturalistic processes such as evolution. If that is
> the case, then there's no reason why a giraffe neck couldn't arise by
> evolution.
>
Until the Big Bang was confirmed, scientist believed the universe was
eternal, with no beginning, without an ending. It always existed.
Sir Fred Hoyle and two other scientist gave the universe a scientific
underpinning which was called the "steady state hypothesize".
If there was no logical conflict with an eternal universe, then
there cannot be an internal logical inconsistency with an eternal
intelligence?
>
R.Dean
purpose or its method.
Why doesn't the question of where such a designer might have
> come from interest you in the least?
>
I didn't say I have no interest, I simply don't know. I've nothing
to base an opinion on.
Why does the total lack of
> evidence of such a designer not carry any weight with you?
>
Show me there _is_ no design anywhere in nature, and I will have to
admit it. But what better evidence for a designer than design?
>
> I can prove your reasoning wrong with something approaching logic:
>
> If we assume that complex things like giraffe necks require designers,
> then by all rights designers require designers. Since there has to be
> some non-designer beginning to the designers, we can therefore
> conclude that something complicated enough to design a giraffe must be
> able to arise by naturalistic processes such as evolution. If that is
> the case, then there's no reason why a giraffe neck couldn't arise by
> evolution.
>
harry k
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Says the master of baseless assertions. Do you delight in exposing
your stupidity?
Harry K
bpuharic
> >
>I have no opinion as to an identity of this designer, its
>purpose or its method.
absent a method, a designer is not a designer. it's a guess
>Until the Big Bang was confirmed, scientist believed the universe was
>eternal, with no beginning, without an ending. It always existed.
>Sir Fred Hoyle and two other scientist gave the universe a scientific
>underpinning which was called the "steady state hypothesize".
>If there was no logical conflict with an eternal universe, then
>there cannot be an internal logical inconsistency with an eternal
>intelligence?
>>
there was no logical conflict until there was.
anybody accept hoyle's theory today?
kind of the same problem with an eternal designer. it's a useless idea
Will in New Haven
>
> Have you in some way calculated the mutation rate, the number of
> mutations that happened during the experiment, and the probability of a
> random mutation to that particular genome producing an enzyme that
> enables digestion of nylon? Not that I can see. This is all just your
> unsupported personal incredulity.
This entire _thread_ has been his unsupported personal incrdulity and
responses to it. He backspaces through answers and then ignores them.
Familiar behavior?
--
Will in New Haven
RAM
Yes.
He is a creationist.
He pretends to be a hard nosed empiricist but has no evidence for his
designer except "looks designed"
He is also using religious creationist arguments but he pretends to
have come to them independent of religion.
In short he is a fraud.
Will in New Haven
> On Aug 25, 8:31 am, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 11:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Have you in some way calculated the mutation rate, the number of
> > > mutations that happened during the experiment, and the probability of a
> > > random mutation to that particular genome producing an enzyme that
> > > enables digestion of nylon? Not that I can see. This is all just your
> > > unsupported personal incredulity.
>
> > This entire _thread_ has been his unsupported personal incrdulity and
> > responses to it. He backspaces through answers and then ignores them.
> > Familiar behavior?
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Yes.
>
> He is a creationist.
>
> He pretends to be a hard nosed empiricist but has no evidence for his
> designer except "looks designed"
This is not inseparable from his background as an engineer. When all
you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Seeing design
where there is no design is a common human failing and is even more
common in engineers.
>
> He is also using religious creationist arguments but he pretends to
> have come to them independent of religion.
>
> In short he is a fraud.
I hate to do it but I agree with you. Seeing design must imply a
designer, which is only one step away from a Designer.
Prof Weird
Given the fact there was a large population of bacteria, and bacteria
can boost their mutation rate quite a bit (for the P aeruginosa
experiment, nylonase digesting colonies showed up at 1 per 1000
cells), that was not a problem.
Also the fact that bacteria have a baseline mutation rate (no
polymerase nor any proofreading system is perfect, so mutations WILL
be generated.)
In fact, it is KNOWN there are error PRONE DNA polymerases. And
whether a polymerase is error-prone or error-correcting can depend on
other factors.
The ability to digest nylon oligomers required just ONE enzyme.
But multi-enzyme systems are KNOWN to have evolved - atrazine
degradation requires 3 enzymes, and pentachlorophenol degradation
requires 5 (IIRC). The enzymes in the IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX chains are
merely modifications of enzymes the bacteria already had.
.
> So, "random"
> apparently wasn't very random.
Actually, it was. You have something resembling EVIDENCE that some
external intellect somehow did something to direct the mutation, or is
your ponderous incredulity supposed to mean something ?
> The mechanism must have been "in place"
> and ready to function extracting nutrients from nylon waste.
Nope - comparing the sequence of the nylon digesting bacteria to the
parental strain SHOWS all that was needed was an extra base pair to
shift the reading frame.
Bacteria have a deletional bias - any DNA that does not do something
useful tends to be deleted. Nylon didn't exist until the 1940s - are
you suggesting the bacteria in the wild magically protected a gene
that coded for a protein that would not be useful for almost 4 BILLION
YEARS ?!
> So, RANDOM mutation and N.S. doesn't seem up to the task in this situation.
Examination of REALITY demonstrates that random mutations and
selection were indeed up to the task - as the P aeruginosa experiment
showed.
As well as all other experiments where bacteria developed the ability
to digest unnatural substrates.
Inez
I asked why you didn't. Can you not read? You have a tendency to
answer different questions then the one asked when backed into a
corner.
> Why doesn't the question of where such a designer might have> come from interest you in the least?
>
> >
> I didn't say I have no interest, I simply don't know. I've nothing
> to base an opinion on.
>
And yet somehow you feel like you can judge that "design" is more
reasonable than evolution, despite not having anything to base your
opinion on.
> Why does the total lack of> evidence of such a designer not carry any weight with you?
>
> >
> Show me there _is_ no design anywhere in nature, and I will have to
> admit it. But what better evidence for a designer than design?
The best evidence of a designer is actually seeing the desginer. What
better evidence is there for the non-existence of a designer than not
being able to detect the physical presence of one?
>
> > I can prove your reasoning wrong with something approaching logic:
>
> > If we assume that complex things like giraffe necks require designers,
> > then by all rights designers require designers. Since there has to be
> > some non-designer beginning to the designers, we can therefore
> > conclude that something complicated enough to design a giraffe must be
> > able to arise by naturalistic processes such as evolution. If that is
> > the case, then there's no reason why a giraffe neck couldn't arise by
> > evolution.
>
> Until the Big Bang was confirmed, scientist believed the universe was
> eternal, with no beginning, without an ending. It always existed.
> Sir Fred Hoyle and two other scientist gave the universe a scientific
> underpinning which was called the "steady state hypothesize".
> If there was no logical conflict with an eternal universe, then
> there cannot be an internal logical inconsistency with an eternal
> intelligence?
>
Well, for one reason because there was a Big Bang which is when time
began and matter got its chance. So...no eternal things, right?
R.Dean
> better evidence is there for the non-existence of a designer than not
> being able to detect the physical presence of one?
>
>>
>>> I can prove your reasoning wrong with something approaching logic:
>>
>>> If we assume that complex things like giraffe necks require designers,
>>> then by all rights designers require designers. Since there has to be
>>> some non-designer beginning to the designers, we can therefore
>>> conclude that something complicated enough to design a giraffe must be
>>> able to arise by naturalistic processes such as evolution. If that is
>>> the case, then there's no reason why a giraffe neck couldn't arise by
>>> evolution.
>>
>> Until the Big Bang was confirmed, scientist believed the universe was
>> eternal, with no beginning, without an ending. It always existed.
>> Sir Fred Hoyle and two other scientist gave the universe a scientific
>> underpinning which was called the "steady state hypothesize".
>> If there was no logical conflict with an eternal universe, then
>> there cannot be an internal logical inconsistency with an eternal
>> intelligence?
>>
> Well, for one reason because there was a Big Bang which is when time
> began and matter got its chance. So...no eternal things, right?
>
false. It's a curious turn of events that most religions taught that
there _was_ a beginning, but science said there was _no_ beginning.
A reversal of rolls? Religion continues to teach there was a beginning.
Science eventually came to the same conclusion.
>
>
Inez
reason to believe a non-physical entity roaming about designing
giraffes is possible? Name a sort of energy that forms stable giraffe-
designing wads.
>
> >>> I can prove your reasoning wrong with something approaching logic:
>
> >>> If we assume that complex things like giraffe necks require designers,
> >>> then by all rights designers require designers. Since there has to be
> >>> some non-designer beginning to the designers, we can therefore
> >>> conclude that something complicated enough to design a giraffe must be
> >>> able to arise by naturalistic processes such as evolution. If that is
> >>> the case, then there's no reason why a giraffe neck couldn't arise by
> >>> evolution.
>
> >> Until the Big Bang was confirmed, scientist believed the universe was
> >> eternal, with no beginning, without an ending. It always existed.
> >> Sir Fred Hoyle and two other scientist gave the universe a scientific
> >> underpinning which was called the "steady state hypothesize".
> >> If there was no logical conflict with an eternal universe, then
> >> there cannot be an internal logical inconsistency with an eternal
> >> intelligence?
>
> > Well, for one reason because there was a Big Bang which is when time
> > began and matter got its chance. So...no eternal things, right?
>
> The logic wasn't falsified, The universe without a beginning was proven
> false.
So...your eternal designer is also proven false. See how it works?
If you insist on logic time began with the BB and you can't have
something existing before time, and the BB wasn't eternally long ago,
so no eternal things.
> It's a curious turn of events that most religions taught that
> there _was_ a beginning, but science said there was _no_ beginning.
> A reversal of rolls? Religion continues to teach there was a beginning.
> Science eventually came to the same conclusion.
>
According to Wikipedia, Fred Hoyle and two other people were the ones
who made up the "Steady State Hypothesis." These people were not
"science."
Ernest Major
<5654545e-8af2-4af1...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Inez
<savagem...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Why would you think that it is a _physical_ entity?
>>
>What else would it be? A StarTrek energy being? Do you have any
>reason to believe a non-physical entity roaming about designing
>giraffes is possible? Name a sort of energy that forms stable giraffe-
>designing wads.
A Star Trek energy being would still be a physical entity. Perhaps he is
advocating a supernatural designer.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<R.d...@gmail.com> writes
>On 8/25/2010 12:40 PM, Inez wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 8:28 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2010 9:05 PM, Inez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 24, 5:41 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2010 5:58 PM, Inez wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 24, 12:43 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/21/2010 3:28 PM, Inez wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 8:27 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2010 10:43 AM, harry k wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 1:02 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has
>>>>>>>>>>>>been observed
>>>>>>>>>>>> in bacteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
>>>>>>>>>>> previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is another bacteria, that scientist, in a lab, took a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> placing the strain in an environment where only nylon, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim not to be a creationist. Belief in a non-physical designer is
not consistent with you not being a creationist. In other words Inez
reasonably inferred that you thought it was a physical entity.
>>>
>>>> I can prove your reasoning wrong with something approaching logic:
>>>
>>>> If we assume that complex things like giraffe necks require designers,
>>>> then by all rights designers require designers. Since there has to be
>>>> some non-designer beginning to the designers, we can therefore
>>>> conclude that something complicated enough to design a giraffe must be
>>>> able to arise by naturalistic processes such as evolution. If that is
>>>> the case, then there's no reason why a giraffe neck couldn't arise by
>>>> evolution.
>>>
>>> Until the Big Bang was confirmed, scientist believed the universe was
>>> eternal, with no beginning, without an ending. It always existed.
>>> Sir Fred Hoyle and two other scientist gave the universe a scientific
>>> underpinning which was called the "steady state hypothesize".
>>> If there was no logical conflict with an eternal universe, then
>>> there cannot be an internal logical inconsistency with an eternal
>>> intelligence?
>>>
>> Well, for one reason because there was a Big Bang which is when time
>> began and matter got its chance. So...no eternal things, right?
>>
>The logic wasn't falsified, The universe without a beginning was proven
>false. It's a curious turn of events that most religions taught that
>there _was_ a beginning, but science said there was _no_ beginning.
>A reversal of rolls? Religion continues to teach there was a beginning.
>Science eventually came to the same conclusion.
>>
Postulating an eternal intelligence also seems inconsistent with your
claim not to be a creationist.
--
alias Ernest Major
Inez
> In message
> <5654545e-8af2-4af1-9a40-9d1c936cf...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Inez
> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >> Why would you think that it is a _physical_ entity?
>
> >What else would it be? A StarTrek energy being? Do you have any
> >reason to believe a non-physical entity roaming about designing
> >giraffes is possible? Name a sort of energy that forms stable giraffe-
> >designing wads.
>
> A Star Trek energy being would still be a physical entity. Perhaps he is
> advocating a supernatural designer.
> --
magic is a more reasonable than well understood and studied natural
processes, so surely Mr. Dean will not go in that direction, although
we're already at a fairly puzzling place:
Theory 1- The neck of the giraffe evolved through mutation and
selection, as seen and described in other creatures.
Theory 2- A mysterious "intelligence" that is "non-physical" existed
eternally, even though the universe is not that old. Somehow this
"non-physical" entity comes to earth occasionally and does things like
make giraffes have long necks or teaches bacteria to eat nylon, all
without leaving evidence. How does a "non-physical" entity affect the
physical? We can't say. How could it have existed eternally? No
idea. Why does it have an interest in the necks of giraffes?
Dunno.
I have to suggest that if Mr. Dean thinks that theory 2 is "more
reasonable" then he ought to lick a different brand of toad.
R.Dean
1% already present? What about the other 99%: did they die out?
>
> Also the fact that bacteria have a baseline mutation rate (no
> polymerase nor any proofreading system is perfect,
>
of DNA and repairs the flawed section is pretty remarkable.
so mutations WILL
> be generated.)
>
> In fact, it is KNOWN there are error PRONE DNA polymerases. And
> whether a polymerase is error-prone or error-correcting can depend on
> other factors.
>
> The ability to digest nylon oligomers required just ONE enzyme.
>
> But multi-enzyme systems are KNOWN to have evolved - atrazine
> degradation requires 3 enzymes, and pentachlorophenol degradation
> requires 5 (IIRC). The enzymes in the IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX chains are
> merely modifications of enzymes the bacteria already had.
>
In the case of P. aeruginosa, how do you know this enzyme is not one the
bacteria already had, which underwent modification. All living
organisims come equipped with the overpowering survival instinct.
Bacteria which has been around for almost 4 billion years is no
different. This I believe is referred to is the motor that drives
the "the struggle for survival". So, this seems reasonable.
> .
>> So, "random"
>> apparently wasn't very random.
>
> Actually, it was. You have something resembling EVIDENCE that some
> external intellect somehow did something to direct the mutation, or is
> your ponderous incredulity supposed to mean something ?
>
>> The mechanism must have been "in place"
>> and ready to function extracting nutrients from nylon waste.
>
> Nope - comparing the sequence of the nylon digesting bacteria to the
> parental strain SHOWS all that was needed was an extra base pair to
> shift the reading frame.
>
Ok, I will accept your explanation. A minor change enabled the survival
of some organisms in an alien environment.
>
> Bacteria have a deletional bias - any DNA that does not do something
> useful tends to be deleted.
>
I guess bacteria has no junk DNA then. I sometimes get the impression
that whatever it takes.....!
Nylon didn't exist until the 1940s - are
> you suggesting the bacteria in the wild magically protected a gene
> that coded for a protein that would not be useful for almost 4 BILLION
> YEARS ?!
>
No where and at no time did I suggest such a scenario.
>
>> So, RANDOM mutation and N.S. doesn't seem up to the task in this situation.
>
> Examination of REALITY demonstrates that random mutations and
> selection were indeed up to the task - as the P aeruginosa experiment
> showed.
>
> As well as all other experiments where bacteria developed the ability
> to digest unnatural substrates.
>
I remember reading about stromatolites in Sharks Bay Australia. These
are built up by bacteria. Fossil remains of identical structures are the
oldest undisputed life forms in earths history. These date back
some 3.8 billion years ago. These structures have the same exact
physical characteristics and were built by bacteria. The ancestors of
the modern bacteria.
The point being bacteria have been around for almost 4 billion years
So it no surprising they have come up with some survival skills in
extremely hostile environments.
R.Dean
See how it works?
> If you insist on logic time began with the BB and you can't have
> something existing before time, and the BB wasn't eternally long ago,
> so no eternal things.
>
>> It's a curious turn of events that most religions taught that
>> there _was_ a beginning, but science said there was _no_ beginning.
>> A reversal of rolls? Religion continues to teach there was a beginning.
>> Science eventually came to the same conclusion.
>>
> According to Wikipedia, Fred Hoyle and two other people were the ones
> who made up the "Steady State Hypothesis." These people were not
> "science."
>
They theorized it however the "eternal universe" preceded Hoyle.
R.Dean
creationist. There is nothing in Genesis or the Bible that gives support
to my views.
R.Dean
otherwise. I have no way to know.
RAM
> On 8/25/2010 2:52 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
>
>
This looks like an attempt to imply you are not a religious person.
I do not believe you.
You get most of your concerns about evolution from "religious
creationists/design antievolutionist mantras."
I think you are a regular church attender and dislike evolution for
religious reasons but have looked at all the design/creationist
literature and decided to play the "rational anti-evoltuionist" on
TO. As opposed to the religious anti-evolutionist that you look
like. There is not a dimes worth of difference between a "religious
creationist/design advocate" and you as you play this game. All your
"hard nosed empirical facts oriented" claims are just for evolution
and never for creationist/design explanations.
This is why you are so coy about responding with empirical substance
to your creationist/design claims. Most TO denizens know creationist/
design claims are an empirical vacuum. You have no empirical support
for you creationist/design claims other than "looks designed" and yet
want to claim religion is not the source of your creationist/design
beliefs.
I do not believe you for one moment. This game has been played before
on TO. No rational person who is empirically oriented could be so
ignorant of the empirical evidencelessness of creationist/design
claims as to take them seriously.
You are are either a fraud or foundationally ignorant of what an
empirical approach to science entails.
I go with fraud.
Stuart
Unfortunately your epistemology does not appear to be any different.
Stuart
Stuart
So anything that *works* in your opinion is design?
Stuart
Will in New Haven
There is nothing _anywhere_ that gives support to your views. You
manage to make less sense than the goddidit crowd.
R.Dean
written where I turned to any religion to justify my views, then you
would be correct. But you don't even attempt to prove you charge.
>
> You get most of your concerns about evolution from "religious
> creationists/design antievolutionist mantras."
>
so similuar to mine, then maybe I'm missing a good source of information.
>
> I think you are a regular church attender and dislike evolution for
> religious reasons but have looked at all the design/creationist
> literature and decided to play the "rational anti-evoltuionist" on
> TO. As opposed to the religious anti-evolutionist that you look
> like. There is not a dimes worth of difference between a "religious
> creationist/design advocate" and you as you play this game. All your
> "hard nosed empirical facts oriented" claims are just for evolution
> and never for creationist/design explanations.
>
You OTOH have accepted whatever you were told by teachers or read in
textbooks as fact: and swallowed it hook line and sinker, no
questioning, no curiosity, and no need to doubt. But you need to believe
that there must be some alternative explanation for questioning
evolution otherwise you might be forced to face the unthinkable.
You might question evolution yourself.
>
> This is why you are so coy about responding with empirical substance
> to your creationist/design claims. Most TO denizens know creationist/
> design claims are an empirical vacuum. You have no empirical support
> for you creationist/design claims other than "looks designed" and yet
> want to claim religion is not the source of your creationist/design
> beliefs.
>
> I do not believe you for one moment. This game has been played before
> on TO. No rational person who is empirically oriented could be so
> ignorant of the empirical evidencelessness of creationist/design
> claims as to take them seriously.
>
empirical evidence exist which shows evolution of the neck of the
giraffe. But design is not at issue. Whether by evolution or
by some other means design is real.
>
> You are are either a fraud or foundationally ignorant of what an
> empirical approach to science entails.
>
> I go with fraud.
>
R.Dean
This is really curious. Whether I a religious person or not is really
quite besides the point. But somehow for so many on the NGs it is
important. Why is that? I suspect it a way to change the subject by
forcing me to defend my religious preferences.
>
> Stuart
>
R.Dean
>
> Stuart
>
R.Dean
leave.
R.Dean
> On Aug 25, 11:54 am, Ernest Major<{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <5654545e-8af2-4af1-9a40-9d1c936cf...@b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Inez
>> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>> Why would you think that it is a _physical_ entity?
>>
>>> What else would it be? A StarTrek energy being? Do you have any
>>> reason to believe a non-physical entity roaming about designing
>>> giraffes is possible? Name a sort of energy that forms stable giraffe-
>>> designing wads.
>>
>> A Star Trek energy being would still be a physical entity. Perhaps he is
>> advocating a supernatural designer.
>> --
> But of course there is no way a rational person could suggest that
> magic is a more reasonable than well understood and studied natural
> processes, so surely Mr. Dean will not go in that direction, although
> we're already at a fairly puzzling place:
>
> Theory 1- The neck of the giraffe evolved through mutation and
> selection, as seen and described in other creatures.
>
long neck. I deliberately chose giraffes, because the uniquely
long neck of this particular animal could not be forged by
simply finding fossils in the strata which best fit the theory.
>
<snip>
Garamond Lethe
hmmm....
>> Unfortunately your epistemology does not appear to be any different.
>>
> Why is it SO VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU to paint me with a religious brush?
You don't think it's relevant?
> This is really curious. Whether I a religious person or not is really
> quite besides the point.
Well, if you were making a scientific critique, you'd be absolutely
right.
Instead, you're duplicating the same talking points that have been used
by protestant creationists for forty years now. There's a specific kind
of epistemology that comes with that belief system, it leads to a common
set of mistakes, and you're making those mistakes.
So sure, we could look at your errors in isolation, but that does get to
the question of /why/ you're making these errors.
If you like, just say "for purposes of this discussion consider me an
atheist".
> But somehow for so many on the NGs it is
> important. Why is that? I suspect it a way to change the subject by
> forcing me to defend my religious preferences.
You're quick to respond to people who want to discuss your religion and a
bit slower to respond to people who want to discuss peer-reviewed
literature.
I suspect it's easier for you to complain about people discussing your
religious beliefs than for you to learn some rudimentary genetics.
If you want this discussion to be about evidence, stop talking about your
religion.
>> Stuart
>>
Prof Weird
Out of all the bacteria on the plate, about 1 in 1000 developed the
ability to digest nylon oligomers and grew into easily visible
colonies. The researchers KNOW they weren't already present because
the colonies took 9 days to show up - had they been already present,
the colonies would have shown up overnight.
The other bacteria most likely did die of starvation - the boosted
mutagenic rate is a stress response in bacteria (rate boosts about 5
orders of magnitude, IIRC). Its a gamble, but a very low chance of a
useful mutation arising is better than 0% chance of surviving
otherwise.
> > Also the fact that bacteria have a baseline mutation rate (no
> > polymerase nor any proofreading system is perfect,
>
> >
> I agree, but a proofreading system, which cuts out entire sections
> of DNA and repairs the flawed section is pretty remarkable.
Where did you get the idea that is how the proofreading system
works ?!?!
At most, one STRAND of DNA is degraded and replaced; the only time you
get the 'cut out entire sections and repair the flaws' is meiosis or
the double-strand break repair system - which REQUIRES another
chromosome to act as a template to replace/repair (so bacteria can't
do that).
What, EXACTLY, would the 'cut out section' be replaced with in haploid
bacteria ?
It is KNOWN that mutations exist - the OBSERVED mutations have passed
the proofreading 'gauntlet'.
> so mutations WILL> be generated.)
>
> > In fact, it is KNOWN there are error PRONE DNA polymerases. And
> > whether a polymerase is error-prone or error-correcting can depend on
> > other factors.
>
> > The ability to digest nylon oligomers required just ONE enzyme.
>
> > But multi-enzyme systems are KNOWN to have evolved - atrazine
> > degradation requires 3 enzymes, and pentachlorophenol degradation
> > requires 5 (IIRC). The enzymes in the IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX chains are
> > merely modifications of enzymes the bacteria already had.
>
> >
> In the case of P. aeruginosa, how do you know this enzyme is not one the
> bacteria already had, which underwent modification.
THEY KNOW THE SEQUENCE OF THE PARENTAL BACTERIA AND THE NYLON
DIGESTING BACTERIA. The nylonase gene was produced by a MUTATION of
another gene.
Again : parental strain CAN NOT DIGEST NYLON OLIGOMERS.
Mutant strain CAN DIGEST NYLON OLIGOMERS.
How did the mutant strain do that ? Frameshift MUTATION. As
determined by SEQUENCING THE BACTERIAL GENOMES.
If the bacteria already has nylonase, it would not have to evolve it -
colonies would have been visible overnight instead of nine days
later !
> All living
> organisims come equipped with the overpowering survival instinct.
BWAHAHAHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA !!!!!!
That has got to be the SILLIEST whines I have ever had the misfortune
to hear in a long time !
Bacteria are single-celled organisms - they don't have instincts.
Do PLANTS have 'survival instincts' ? How would you know ?
Are you suggesting the single-celled bacteria 'will' themselves to
survive ? Alter their own genomes by wishing really hard ? Pray to
the God of Bacilli to zap sequences into their DNA ?
Repeat until you understand : instinct cannot change DNA. Willpower
and decisions cannot change DNA.
I suspect what you are calling 'survival instincts' are just
physiological responses fully explainable via evolution.
> Bacteria which has been around for almost 4 billion years is no
> different. This I believe is referred to is the motor that drives
> the "the struggle for survival". So, this seems reasonable.>
Only if you're a blithering idiot that believes in magical willpower
that can alter DNA in desired directions.
> >> So, "random"
> >> apparently wasn't very random.
>
> > Actually, it was. You have something resembling EVIDENCE that some
> > external intellect somehow did something to direct the mutation, or is
> > your ponderous incredulity supposed to mean something ?
>
> >> The mechanism must have been "in place"
> >> and ready to function extracting nutrients from nylon waste.
>
> > Nope - comparing the sequence of the nylon digesting bacteria to the
> > parental strain SHOWS all that was needed was an extra base pair to
> > shift the reading frame.
>
> >
> Ok, I will accept your explanation. A minor change enabled the survival
> of some organisms in an alien environment.
And if your deranged ideas about the power of proofreading were valid,
there would be no mutations/changes in organisms.
And you 'determined' that minor changes CANNOT explain how a proto-
giraffe could change into a giraffe HOW ?
Oh, right - your gibbering incredulity outweighs the accumulated
knowledge of thousands of scientists.
> > Bacteria have a deletional bias - any DNA that does not do something
> > useful tends to be deleted.
>
> >
> I guess bacteria has no junk DNA then. I sometimes get the impression
> that whatever it takes.....!
They have very little - if a gene becomes redundant, will take some
time for it to be mutated out of recognition or deleted.
> > Nylon didn't exist until the 1940s - are
> > you suggesting the bacteria in the wild magically protected a gene
> > that coded for a protein that would not be useful for almost 4 BILLION
> > YEARS ?!
>
> >
> No where and at no time did I suggest such a scenario.
You did every time you blubbered about the bacteria already having
nylonase activity.
If nylonase was 'already present', it would have been present in the
bacteria's genome for 4 billion years BEFORE IT WAS EVER NEEDED !
And, for bacteria, useless DNA tends to be deleted ...
> >> So, RANDOM mutation and N.S. doesn't seem up to the task in this situation.
>
> > Examination of REALITY demonstrates that random mutations and
> > selection were indeed up to the task - as the P aeruginosa experiment
> > showed.
>
> > As well as all other experiments where bacteria developed the ability
> > to digest unnatural substrates.
>
> I remember reading about stromatolites in Sharks Bay Australia. These
> are built up by bacteria. Fossil remains of identical structures are the
> oldest undisputed life forms in earths history. These date back
> some 3.8 billion years ago. These structures have the same exact
> physical characteristics and were built by bacteria. The ancestors of
> the modern bacteria.
>
> The point being bacteria have been around for almost 4 billion years
> So it no surprising they have come up with some survival skills in
> extremely hostile environments.
Those 'skills' are mutation and selection - you know, EVOLUTION.
The same process applies to all critters with genomes that have
imperfect replication - ie, ALL OF THEM.
Garamond Lethe
> On 8/25/2010 6:54 PM, RAM wrote:
<snip>
>> I think you are a regular church attender and dislike evolution for
>> religious reasons but have looked at all the design/creationist
>> literature and decided to play the "rational anti-evoltuionist" on TO.
>> As opposed to the religious anti-evolutionist that you look like.
>> There is not a dimes worth of difference between a "religious
>> creationist/design advocate" and you as you play this game. All your
>> "hard nosed empirical facts oriented" claims are just for evolution and
>> never for creationist/design explanations.
> >
> Again whether it's true or not, it's utterly immaterial. But it isn't.
> You OTOH have accepted whatever you were told by teachers or read in
> textbooks as fact: and swallowed it hook line and sinker, no
> questioning, no curiosity, and no need to doubt. But you need to believe
> that there must be some alternative explanation for questioning
> evolution otherwise you might be forced to face the unthinkable. You
> might question evolution yourself.
Do you spend a lot of time questioning engineering as well?
Probably not. You use what you "swallowed hook line and sinker", you see
that it works, and that's good enough. (Engineering also doesn't
conflict with your religion, but that's neither here nor there.)
Anyway....
If you're looking for people who question evolution --- and who also have
the courage to follow up on their questions ---, they're pretty easy to
find. They're called evolutionary biologists. Their careers are defined
by how successful they are finding evidence that bits of evolution are
wrong, incomplete or imprecise; and then adjusting the theory to account
for what they've found.
You, on the other hand, raise questions but don't have the courage to
track down the answers. After all, two hundred years and tens of
thousands of scientists across multiple disciplines might be right, and
you could be wrong. It could happen.
(This usually isn't a big deal unless religion gets involved, and only
then if it's one of those fragile religions that can't survive an
encounter with an undergraduate biology textbook. I'm sure that isn't
the case here, though.)
<snip>
R.Dean
R.Dean
>
>> This is really curious. Whether I a religious person or not is really
>> quite besides the point.
>
> Well, if you were making a scientific critique, you'd be absolutely
> right.
>
> Instead, you're duplicating the same talking points that have been used
> by protestant creationists for forty years now. There's a specific kind
> of epistemology that comes with that belief system, it leads to a common
> set of mistakes, and you're making those mistakes.
>
>
> So sure, we could look at your errors in isolation, but that does get to
> the question of /why/ you're making these errors.
>
> If you like, just say "for purposes of this discussion consider me an
> atheist".
>
>> But somehow for so many on the NGs it is
>> important. Why is that? I suspect it a way to change the subject by
>> forcing me to defend my religious preferences.
>
> You're quick to respond to people who want to discuss your religion and a
> bit slower to respond to people who want to discuss peer-reviewed
> literature.
>
>
> I suspect it's easier for you to complain about people discussing your
> religious beliefs than for you to learn some rudimentary genetics.
>
> If you want this discussion to be about evidence, stop talking about your
> religion.
>
>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>
John Harshman
Careful with the word choice there. You are accusing paleontologists of
fraud. Did you intend to?
RAM
No it isn't immaterial. You engage in a deception when you claiming
to be a hard headed empirically oriented person.
There is a reason for that deception.
> But it isn't.
> You OTOH have accepted whatever you were told by teachers or read in
> textbooks as fact: and swallowed it hook line and sinker, no
> questioning, no curiosity, and no need to doubt. But you need to believe
> that there must be some alternative explanation for questioning
> evolution otherwise you might be forced to face the unthinkable.
> You might question evolution yourself.
I have studied human evolution for over 40 years and as a youth until
my early 20s I was a YEC of the hillbilly kind.
I did question evolution and as I became trained in science I had no
difficulties in understanding the nature of hard nosed facts and
theories and how they interact over time. You however are brain dead
when it comes to empirical support for your creationist/design
claims. This is either self deception or intentional.
I think it is intentional. You have enough knowledge of biology to
know that the facts fit the theory of evolution far far better than
the evidenceless creationist/design claims that you offer as viable
alternative..
>
> > This is why you are so coy about responding with empirical substance
> > to your creationist/design claims. Most TO denizens know creationist/
> > design claims are an empirical vacuum. You have no empirical support
> > for you creationist/design claims other than "looks designed" and yet
> > want to claim religion is not the source of your creationist/design
> > beliefs.
>
> > I do not believe you for one moment. This game has been played before
> > on TO. No rational person who is empirically oriented could be so
> > ignorant of the empirical evidencelessness of creationist/design
> > claims as to take them seriously.
>
> >
> I did not set out to justify design. My intent was to show that no
> empirical evidence exist which shows evolution of the neck of the
> giraffe. But design is not at issue. Whether by evolution or
> by some other means design is real.
And you like all creationist/design claimants are evidenceless but it
"looks designed" is enough to claim design is real independent of
evolution. Well yes as a social scientist I see design every day and
I also see evolution in human life and human social life.
>
> > You are are either a fraud or foundationally ignorant of what an
> > empirical approach to science entails.
>
> > I go with fraud.
>
> I don't need this. I won't respond to you again. Have a good life.
I already have after 40 plus years as a scientist and still practicing
part time.
I also don't think you are foundationally ignorant of what science
entails.
I still go with fraud.
May you also have a good life. And learning science, as scientists
understand it, is a life enhancing experience.
But it will challenge your hard headed commitment to unevidenced
beliefs.
Inez
>
> >>> Well, for one reason because there was a Big Bang which is when time
> >>> began and matter got its chance. So...no eternal things, right?
>
> >> The logic wasn't falsified, The universe without a beginning was proven
> >> false.
>
> > So...your eternal designer is also proven false.
>
> >
> Not one and the same thing.
No, but it's still falsified. If the universe had a beginning then
there aren't any eternal things, right? If you don't agree, explain
please.
> See how it works?> If you insist on logic time began with the BB and you can't have
> > something existing before time, and the BB wasn't eternally long ago,
> > so no eternal things.
>
> >> It's a curious turn of events that most religions taught that
> >> there _was_ a beginning, but science said there was _no_ beginning.
> >> A reversal of rolls? Religion continues to teach there was a beginning.
> >> Science eventually came to the same conclusion.
>
> > According to Wikipedia, Fred Hoyle and two other people were the ones
> > who made up the "Steady State Hypothesis." These people were not
> > "science."
>
> They theorized it however the "eternal universe" preceded Hoyle.-
I don't think it was as pervasive as you are pretending, but it's a
side issue.
Inez
> On 8/25/2010 2:54 PM, Ernest Major wrote:> In message
> > <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>> Why would you think that it is a _physical_ entity?
>
> >> What else would it be? A StarTrek energy being? Do you have any reason
> >> to believe a non-physical entity roaming about designing giraffes is
> >> possible? Name a sort of energy that forms stable giraffe- designing
> >> wads.
>
> > A Star Trek energy being would still be a physical entity. Perhaps he is
> > advocating a supernatural designer.
>
> >
> I am not advocating any particular entity either supernatural or
> otherwise. I have no way to know.
The funny thing is that you think this is somehow laudable or
appropriate. You're the one who thinks it's reasonable to hypothesize
"designers," and yet strangely enough you are unable to imagine one
that sounds at all likely, or address the obvious problems with there
having been a designer for giraffes. Why is that?
I don't have any real problem with religious people, but here you're
claiming to have derived a mysterious designer from the evidence. Why
are you so reluctant to talk about designers? Tell us how an eternal
and non-physical designer would work. What forces of nature might it
be composed of? How did it manage to be eternal in a non-eternal
universe? What evidence- apart from what seems to you to look like
design in animals- do you see for it?
Will in New Haven
I have attacked your evidence, or lack of it. I haven't attacked you.
If anything, I have defended you from the charge that you are
religiously motivated. SOME of your arguments seemingly could come
straight from Answers in Genesis but you certainly _could_ have
thought of them on your own, so I have said that we should give you
the benefit of the doubt. You've generally been polite and we _are_
all bozos on this bus, so I haven't been upset with you or wanted to
be unpleasant.
However, people _have_ given you the evidence you asked for. You have
ignored it, preferring to reiterate your incredulity. That is the sum
and substance of your argument.
And _that argument_ not you, is intensely stupid.
However, if your feelings are hurt feel free to leave. You have shown
us nothing.
Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out if you decide
to go through with it.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
>>>>> I pointed out several times that I am not a Biblical or religion
>>>>> based creationist. There is nothing in Genesis or the Bible that
>>>>> gives support to my views.
>>
>> hmmm....
>>
>>>> Unfortunately your epistemology does not appear to be any different.
>>>>
>>> Why is it SO VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU to paint me with a religious brush?
>>
>> You don't think it's relevant?
> >
> No, Not at all!
>>
>>> This is really curious. Whether I a religious person or not is really
>>> quite besides the point.
>>
>> Well, if you were making a scientific critique, you'd be absolutely
>> right.
>>
>> Instead, you're duplicating the same talking points that have been used
>> by protestant creationists for forty years now. There's a specific
>> kind of epistemology that comes with that belief system, it leads to a
>> common set of mistakes, and you're making those mistakes.
> >
> Can you be specific? i seriously would like to know.
I'll limit myself to one. You're not using math.
If you want to show that mutation + natural selection cannot account for
giraffe morphology, then do the work to make that argument. We have DNA
sequences for multiple species of giraffes and their (alleged) close
relatives. Does the accepted mutation rate agree with what's in the
fossil record? What's the minimum rate of neck growth per generation and
do we know of anything similar? Are giraffes unique in how they've
evolved, or did other megafauna go through similar evolution (and how do
you quantify "similar" and "unique")?
To make this mathematical argument, you'll need to do the following:
a) Read. Grab a pile of undergraduate textbooks on zoology, morphology,
genetics, molecular biology, paleontology and evolution. Start pounding
through them. If you're going to make a successful argument against
evolution, you're going to have to use the concepts and vocabulary that
scientists use.
b) Read. From there, you should have several pointers into the peer-
reviewed literature. If you want to read a paper that's behind a paywall,
post a request here and it just might magically show up in your mailbox.
Because you hit the textbooks first, when you read a paper about giraffe
"sexual selection" you'll have a much clearer idea what they're talking
about (and if you need to refresh your memory, you've got the textbook
right there).
c) Make one argument. Pick your strongest and stick with it.
d) Figure out what math you need to demonstrate your argument. If you
can't understand how to do this, you probably don't understand the point
you're trying to make.
e) Do the math.
Does something look designed? Great! How do you quantify that?
Is it impossible for hearts and necks to coevolve? Great! How do you
quantify that?
Do bacteria carry around with them the ability to change the food that
they eat? Great! Show how those bits of DNA that do not usually
contribute to fitness nevertheless remain free from debilitating
mutations over millions of generations while other systems predictably
degrade.
To sum up: if you've got math, you have no need of arguments from
personal incredulity. If you don't have math, you're left with a small
collection of rhetorical devices that only impress other people who also
lack math.
<snip>
>> You're quick to respond to people who want to discuss your religion and
>> a bit slower to respond to people who want to discuss peer-reviewed
>> literature.
> >
> I've seen no peer-reviewed literature. Who and when was it posted?
Learning a few academic terms of art will also be useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Limiting myself to my posts:
Three figures from Barton's _Evolution_.
David M. Brown et al., "Extensive population genetic structure in the
giraffe", BMC Biology 2007, 5:57.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/5/57
Warren Ewens's _Mathematical
Population Genetics I: Theoretical Introduction_.
http://www.springer.com/mathematics/applications/book/978-0-387-20191-7
Graham Mitchell et al., "The structure and function of giraffe
jugular vein valves", South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 39
(2):175-180. 2009.
http://repository.up.ac.za/upspace/bitstream/2263/13994/1/
Mitchell_Structure%282009%29.pdf
To a first approximation, all academic journals are peer-reviewed, as are
all undergraduate and graduate science textbooks. Conferences can be
tricker. Also to a first approximation, creationists don't submit their
work to peer review.
<snip>
harry k
> On 8/25/2010 12:40 PM, Inez wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 8:28 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/24/2010 9:05 PM, Inez wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 24, 5:41 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/24/2010 5:58 PM, Inez wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Aug 24, 12:43 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/21/2010 3:28 PM, Inez wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 21, 8:27 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/21/2010 10:43 AM, harry k wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 1:02 pm, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/20/2010 5:10 AM, Vend wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 19 Ago, 22:35, "R.Dean"<R.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's my point. The ancient wolves genome provided the diversity
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we find in domesticated dogs of today.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about dogs, but evolution of new genes has been observed
> >>>>>>>>>>> in bacteria.
> >>>>>>>>>>> For instance, some bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon:
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, bacteria changed their diet: to eating nylon. What did they eat
> >>>>>>>>>> previous to nylon? And are the able to eat their earlier food?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> pseudomonas aeruginosa and induced it to eat nylon. They did this by
But "I am not a creationist".
Harry K