Closed Debate: Nowhere Man versus Lilith
Grinder
For the record, here is the final rules as agreed upon by Lilith (in the
newsgroup) and Nowhere Man (confirmed by email.)
____
Debate Rules
I. Ethical Guidelines
A. No personal attacks. (1a)
B. No illogical statements. (1b)
C. No arguments from authority. (1c)
D. No arguments from incredulity. (1d)
E. Definitions should be presented for
all terms. (1e)
F. References should be presented for
new evidence. (1f)
II. Structure
A. Debate should remain between the two
debaters. Only statements within the
debate thread and between the debaters
should be considered. Posts from those
outside the debate should be ignored
and do not effect the actual debate.
(2a, 2b)
B. The debate will be an exchange of posts.
Each initial post will be a challenge,
the follow-up a rebuttal. (addendum #2)
For example:
Set 1: Post 1: NWM's challenge.
Post 2: Lilith's rebuttal.
Set 2: Post 3: Lilith's challenge.
Post 4: NWM's rebuttal.
Set 3: (etc)
1. There will be 10 challenge-rebuttal
Sets, at which time the debate will be
ended. This means each party gets to
challenge 5 times, and must write a
rebuttal 5 times. (addendum #3)
2. There will be no follow-up posting to
the rebuttals in the official structure
of the debate. Just challenge-rebuttal
format. (addendum #6)
3. Each posting must not exceed 15360 bytes
(15 kb) of ASCII text.
a. Definitions of new terms used in
the debate will not count towards the
space limit but should be
appropriately succinct at the
beginning of each post. (addendum #11)
b. A proper scientific referencing
section (the actual lines of reference
to author/journal/etc) will count
towards the 15KB space requirement.
(addendum #10 recinded)
C. Challenges
1. A Challenge is only one point offered
within one sentence of under 100 words,
and must be supported by reference to
peer-reviewed scientific literature or
data. Of course, the total post
including references to data can be up
to 15KB, but the challenge point must
be short and succinct. (addenda #4)
a. Reference calls within the challenge
sentence do not count towards the
100 word limit. (addenda #4)
2. One major point is allowed paragraph.
An exception can be made if two points
can only be stated together. (2d)
3. The challenge must be based in
scientific evidence. For instance,
"Adam and Eve existed" will be allowed
as a challenge, as long as there is
repeatable scientific evidence in the
peer-reviewed scientific literature to
support that point (fossil evidence,
for example). As my opponent has
originally claimed that creationism is
as scientific as the science supporting
evolution, this should be acceptable.
(addenda #4)
D. Rebuttals
1. Each major point in the challenge
should be responded to. (2f)
2. Rebuttals should reply to each
paragraph in it's entirety without
separating paragraph text. (2e)
3. Rebuttals must be written with
scientific literature supporting each
rebuttal point. For instance, the
debater rebutting "Adam and Eve existed"
must make all points in rebuttal with
evidence (single or multiple evidence)
from the scientific literature (genetic
evidence, paleontological evidence, etc)
from as many scientific peer-reviewed
sources as necessary and that fit in
discussion within the 15KB. (addenda #5)
E. Although only the two debaters are allowed
to participate in the debate, they may call
on outside resources for help. This
includes both natural and supernatural
entities. (2g)
F. Responders will be allowed up to [what,
if any, time limit?] to respond. (2h)
III. Evidence
A. Evidence must be factual and empirical.
It must be factual in the sense that it
is shown beyond reasonable doubt. It must
be empirical in the sense that the
observation can be repeated by others.
Vague memories, stories from parents,
things heard from friends, and orange
colored books do not qualify.
B. The term "peer-reviewed scientific
literature" is defined as the following:
the entity in which the data is published
must have as its publishing requirement a
review and critique of any submitted
article by a panel of scientific experts
in that scientific field in which the data
is presented.
An editorial review of an author's article
(such as found in Time or Newsweek) does
not count as "peer review". However, large
data sources (such as the human genome
assembly) first published in the peer-
reviewed literature are allowed to be
used as evidence. (addenda #9)
IV. Judges
A. Three judges will oversee and moderate the
debate. (3)
B. At any time a respondant may ask for a
"judgment call".
1. This should be done *before* the actual
response to an opponent. This should be
a separate post that states what rules
have been broken, as well as the
relevant text. Both parties should wait
silently for a ruling. After all three
judges have ruled, the discussion will
continue. (3a)
2. If the ruling is in the favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff continue and
respond to the post as normal. (3aI)
3. If the ruling is in the favor of the
plaintiff, the plaintiff should wait
for the defendant to correct his mistake.
This defendant should repost his entire
offending post with the corrected text
in place. (3aII)
C. If at any time a debater adamantly refuses
to adhere to a ruling of the judges, the
debater will be disqualified and shown
unfit for debate. (3b)
D. If a debater feels 1) the opponent has
repeated an invalid point and 2) the debater
has no original points regarding the topic
discussion, he may call "check". The
responder must cover all points in the
"check" post as usual and must also provide
an original response to the checked point as
well. (3c)
1. After a response has been made, if the
debater feels the new point is not
original, he may call "checkmate". The
responder is given another chance to
generate a new approach to the topic.
Both debaters must then wait for the
judges to rule on the checkmate. If the
judges rule against the defendant, he
has lost. (3cI)
E. If a post is found to be over 15KB
according to the standard of measure, the
author of the post is given an amount of
time (3-4 days?) in which to cut down the
size of the post before re-posting.
(addenda #11)
Grinder
-----
Beginning Post:
The topic of debate is helpful mutations. The theory of evolution
depends that helpful mutations can happen. So there is a serious
problem with the theory of evolution because helpful mutations do not
exist. So I present the question... has a single helpful mutation ever
been observed? I say no it has not. It is up to my opponent to show
that helpful mutations exist because she wishes to support the theory
of evolution. Because I am not the one making any claims I do not have
to post any references. After my opponent is unable to show that any
helpful mutations have been docuemented this will show that the theory
of evolution is unfounded.
The definition of a helpful mutation is a mutation that helps the
mutatee better survive.
NM
Lilith
There is no "standard genome" -- no "reference sequence" in humans,
but rather a collection of common consensus sets (haplotypes) that
varies from individual to individual. While it is observed that single
beneficial mutations can rapidly sweep through a population, it is
also important to note that fitness is also likely to be governed by
the combination of mutations rather than a single mutation.
Evolutionary theory supposes beneficial point mutations to be unusual
events that sweep through a population. Benefit and selection are not
simply dependent on these single unusual events, because an
individual's sum total of variation (mutation) through their genome --
numbering in the millions across the human species -- is likely to be
more the source of fitness than a single point change. One must ask
what is the context of this beneficial mutation, how does it give an
advantage over the previous form of the gene in the context of the
creature's environment.
There are several studied examples of these rare mutations occurring
which can increase fitness, including those done on bacteria and other
organisms. However, let me cite such a one that has been observed in
humans. This example is particularly interesting, because evolutionary
theory suggests that human diets have rapidly changed over the past
several thousand years from their original form. Our diets are now
rich in fat and refined carbohydrate, clearly not the previous diet of
our nomadic or foraging ancestors. In addition, Westernized society
has made its members more sedentary. These changes may have out-paced
selection, so that as an extreme example, it can be suggested that
many humans in a Westernized context are not fit -- not fully adapted
-- for a sedentary, food-rich environment. Heart disease, higher serum
ratios of LDL to HDL, high blood pressure, and other cardiovascular
symptoms are indicative of chronic cardiovascular disease, which
results from the inability of human physiology to cope with this
change in diet. Individuals unable to cope with such a diet will
suffer as a result, so that the human population can experience
selective pressure, and beneficial mutations allowing individuals the
ability to survive with this changed diet should be expected to
appear.
One such mutation has already been found, though this is not to say
that others will not be found as well. This particular mutation
renders the lipoprotein gene as a shorter form and confers a survival
advantage on the humans with this mutation. This mutation shortens the
lipoprotein lipase (LPL) protein by inserting a "stop" signal upstream
of the original stop signal, while the majority of other humans share
the non-mutated, "full length" version of this gene.
There have been several papers on this example, as it is important to
medical research to understand the basis of cardiovascular disease.
One set of authors studying this mutation write, "LPL S447X single
nucleotide polymorphism has been associated with decreased
triglycrides, incrased high density lipoprotein cholesterol, and a
decreased risk of coronary artery disease, which may occur
independently of its beneficial lipid changes." Researchers found that
carriers of this mutation had decreased incidence of hypertension
across men/women, youth/adults, and was independent of triglyceride
levels as well, suggesting that this variant has protective affects to
humans carrying this mutation, not only in the healthier change in
plasma lipid levels, but also in healthier regulation of blood
pressure and a decreased trend in vascular disease. The researchers
conclude, "These studies on the S447X variant provide a novel
potential mechanism whereby carriers have a reduced risk of CAD and
stroke, namely through decreasing blood pressure. In addition to its
association with an improved lipoprotein profile, these data
illustrate another mechanism whereby the S447X variant has beneficial
activities compared to wildtype LPL. Furthermore, these findings
suggest a novel function of the LPL protein, namely influencing
endothelial cell biology." [1]
This is one example of a beneficial mutation. Note it has a context:
the mutation benefits humans in a modern context. It has a cause: a
mutation that causes a shorter version of the LPL gene while the
"orignal" form of the gene is still obviously present. The mutation
has a clinically observed outcome in several studies: increased
survival rates, increased vascular health, higher HDL levels, and
lower incidence of hypertension. This mutation ranges from a few
percent in some populations in up to to 30 percent in others,
indicating that the variation has spread into a population. There have
also been several studies supporting these findings (a few given in
references 2-4 for example) making this likely one of the best studied
and established beneficial mutations that we are aware of.
References:
1. Clee et al. The LPL S447X cSNP is associated with decreased blood
pressure and plasma triglycerides, and reduced risk of coronary artery
disease. Clin. Gen. October 2001 60(4): 293-300
2. Wittrup HH, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Lipoprotein lipase
mutations, plasma lipids and lipoproteins, and risk of ischemic heart
disease. A meta-analysis. Circulation
1999: 99: 2901–2907.
3. Wittekoek ME, Moll E, Pimstone SN et al. A frequent mutation in the
lipoprotein lipase gene (D9N) deteriorates the biochemical and
clinical phenotype of familial hyperchoelsterolemia. Arterioscler
Thromb Vasc Biol 1999: 19: 2708–2713.
4. Knoblauch H, Bauerfeind A, Krahenbuhl C, Daury A, Rohde K, Bejanin
S, Essioux L, Schuster H, Luft FC, Reich JG. Common haplotypes in five
genes influence genetic variance of LDL and HDL cholesterol in the
general population. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Jun 1; 11(12): 1477-85.
Definitions:
Haplotype: <genetics> The set, made up of one allele of each gene,
comprising the genotype. (Cancerweb online dictionary)
Polymorphism: <genetics> The regular and simultaneous occurrence in a
single interbreeding population of two or more alleles of a gene,
where the frequency of the rarer alleles is greater than can be
explained by recurrent mutation alone (typically greater than 1%). The
concept includes chromosome polymorphism. (Cancerweb online
dictionary)
----------------
Original text above this line is about 6.2 KB in text in Windows
Notepad.
Lilith
of evolution depends that helpful mutations can happen. So there is a
serious problem with the theory of evolution because helpful mutations
do not exist."
My challenge is this: I challenge my opponent to provide any empirical
evidence for his claim that helpful mutations do not exist.
Lilith.
Nowhere Man
as a full admission that she is not able to find a single a observed
benificial mutation. It has been one week since I started the debate
and Lilith has failed to respond. She has not responded to the message
I posted or to this new post a judge told me is the new debate thread.
This means that I win the debate. I would like people to see this as a
lesson that even the most basics of evolution do not have foundation.
Thank you all.
NM
R.Schenck
this thread is abandoned right, or at least just for the posting of
the rules right? and its obviously a thread that nowhere man is
reading right?
so lilith has responded to his challenge in the actual debate thread.:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bug8l5021oh%40enews1.newsguy.com
if you had been concerned with reading it and are posting thru goole
it would have been little problem for you tro find her repsonse.
ie
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=author:lilyth%40umich.edu+
you have failed to repsond since her posting or post anything at
all since then and that makes you the one who lost the debate. you
are unable to respond to her answers to your challenge and unable to
post a new challenge or anything for that matter other than your false
claim at victory, which of course can only be awarded by the judges
anyway. you have also been unable to respond to the numerous
extra-debate threads discussing the many many beneficial mutations.
please prepare your challenge for bachmann under the same rules. why
ont you make it simple for yourself and ask him the same question,
since you still think there are no beneficial mutations. that way you
can get right to the three strikes that you are inevitably heading
for.
Louann Miller
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
Funny, everybody else saw it. She posted six hours or so after you
did.
with apologies to the judges for jumping into a closed thread,
nevertheless let me help you out here. Complete text of her post
including all headers.
See also google:
----
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: lil...@umich.edu (Lilith)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Closed Debate: Nowhere Man versus Lilith (Round 1 -
Nowhere Man)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:16:11 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 141
Sender: ro...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: rob...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <75200cbc.04011...@posting.google.com>
References: <bug7c...@enews1.newsguy.com>
<bug8l...@enews1.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1074525372 51245 128.100.83.246 (19 Jan
2004 15:16:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:16:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.91.113.251
Xref: uni-berlin.de talk.origins:1268464
"Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
news:<bug8l...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> Nowhere Man's opening post, transplanted from an "abandoned" thread:
>
> -----
>
> Beginning Post:
>
> The topic of debate is helpful mutations. The theory of evolution
> depends that helpful mutations can happen. So there is a serious
> problem with the theory of evolution because helpful mutations do not
References:
Definitions:
(end quoted text)
HTH, HAND.
Louann
--
The full text of the 2003 evolution debate between Nowhere Man and Lilith
can be found at http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/debate/nm-lilith-1/
Mitchell Coffey
Well, now that this little misunderstanding has been cleared up, you
can post your response to Lilith.
Best of luck.
Mitchell Coffey
Nowhere Man
to look. The judge gave me the wrong link. It appears that I am being
misled on purpose. I will give you the benifit of the doubt. This does
count to my time because I was not aware of the post. I will do
Lillith a favor by not bringing up the rules about dishonest tactics.
I hope this will not happen again. None of this would have happened if
you accepted my idea to send posts to the judges.
NM
Nowhere Man
>
> 3. Wittekoek ME, Moll E, Pimstone SN et al. A frequent mutation in the
> lipoprotein lipase gene (D9N) deteriorates the biochemical and
> clinical phenotype of familial hyperchoelsterolemia. Arterioscler
>
> 4. Knoblauch H, Bauerfeind A, Krahenbuhl C, Daury A, Rohde K, Bejanin
> S, Essioux L, Schuster H, Luft FC, Reich JG. Common haplotypes in five
> genes influence genetic variance of LDL and HDL cholesterol in the
> general population. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Jun 1; 11(12): 1477-85.
>
> Definitions:
>
> Haplotype: <genetics> The set, made up of one allele of each gene,
> comprising the genotype. (Cancerweb online dictionary)
>
> Polymorphism: <genetics> The regular and simultaneous occurrence in a
> single interbreeding population of two or more alleles of a gene,
> where the frequency of the rarer alleles is greater than can be
> explained by recurrent mutation alone (typically greater than 1%). The
> concept includes chromosome polymorphism. (Cancerweb online
> dictionary)
>
> ----------------
> Original text above this line is about 6.2 KB in text in Windows
> Notepad.
You still have not shown that this is a mutation that caused these
benificial changes in the person. How do you know it was a mutation
that caused this and not a designed backup system? Also how do you
know this is an evolutionary mutation would be passed to children and
not just a fluke?
NM
Daniel Harper
I have not been able to get in touch with Nullifidian within the time that
this message was posted, but Grinder and I have had a bit of
back-and-forth, so I feel comfortable making a ruling here.
Nowhere Man claims to have not seen the thread posting from Google, which
is understandable. Nonetheless, it is his responsibility (as it is
Lilith's) to keep up with the debate threads and know what's going on. A
simple Google search and he would never have had this issue.
Nonetheless, in the interest of being as fair as possible, I will give
Nowhere Man another three full days to compose his response to Lilith's
challenge. Given the vagaries of posting delays, I'd say that his message
should be dated no later than midnight Central time Friday night. (January
30th.) Since the debate has been discussed to some detail in the open
debate thread, I think this is a fair compromise on Nowhere Man's part.
This will be the last time I am willing to give an extension of this
nature, however. As I said earlier, it is his responsibility (and not
Griner's, who has been sending him links to current debate information) to
check the threads and know the current status of the debate. Another
attempt at a delaying tactic like this one and Nowhere Man forfeits the
debate as far as I'm concerned.
Grinder has created a new debate thread for the purpose of continuation.
Relevant links here:
Root of the thread at Google Groups:
http://www.google.com/groups?threadm=75200cbc.04011...@posting.google.com
Challenge 1 (Nowhere Man)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bv4kk...@enews1.newsguy.com
Rebuttal 1 (Lilith)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bv4l5...@enews1.newsguy.com
Challenge 2 (Lilith)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bv4l9...@enews1.newsguy.com
I am also emailing a copy of this message directly to Nowhere Man.
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
Karl
to talk.origins, says...
Absolutely!
Lilith, you should apologize at once for over-estimating Nowhere Man's
intelligence!
...........Karl
Lilith
The format of the debate, which you agreed to, does not allow you any
kind of rebuttal. The audience and posterity can make their own
decisions on what I've posted, as well as the evidence I've presented
that has been generated by doctors and researchers. But I'll respond
to you outside of the format of the debate right here.
I'm not pretending you ever knew anything about biology, but what are
you trying to accomplish with arguing from ignorance? You might as
well have said "the thingamabob is connected to the schizwoodle" up
there for the sense I can parse out of what you're saying. What's a
"designed backup system" -- whatever the heck that is -- have to do
with a disabled gene whose disabling shows a beneficial effect in
people with the disabled gene?
The mutation clearly stands out in the studies, to a high probability.
The allele is inheritable. There is no "fluke" in 10-20% of the
population. And what are you going on about "backup system"? WHAT
backup system? The protein is mutated, truncated, clipped, prematurely
ended on translation. It's shorter. It's functioning in a way that's
not as bad as if it was the more "efficient" full-length gene.
Feel free to reply to my next challenge.
Grinder
"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.04012...@posting.google.com...
I do apologize for the confusion, but it was no way intentional. It is
threading properly in my newsreader, but Google Groups has a habit of
breaking messages with different Subject lines into a new thread. That is
what happened in this case.
Nowhere Man
You misunderstand the debate format. I start the argument and then we
reply back and forth until the arguement is settled. You can't change
the debate topic. I am as educated as anyone on evolution so I don't
appreciate you critisizing my knowledge. Maybe you should try to
answer my questions. Playing dumb is not going to cut it. I said from
the begining that I was not going to go easy on you. It is nothing
personal. If you try to get out of this debate everyone is going to
see it and it will reflect badly upon you like the last one. You know
very well what a designed backup system is. It is exactly what it
sounds like. A backup system that was designed into the human genome
for if things go wrong. You have no way to tell a mutation caused the
changes you talk about. You just assume that it must have been a
mutation because you assume evolution can create things. Where is
evidence that this is caused by a mutation and not something else more
reasonable like a backup system? Did you see the protien get mutated
youself? Who saw it? Where is the support for this theory?
NM
Daniel Harper
enough.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:09:01 +0000, Nowhere Man wrote:
<snip original post>
>>
>> The format of the debate, which you agreed to, does not allow you any
>> kind of rebuttal. The audience and posterity can make their own
>> decisions on what I've posted, as well as the evidence I've presented
>> that has been generated by doctors and researchers. But I'll respond to
>> you outside of the format of the debate right here.
>>
>> I'm not pretending you ever knew anything about biology, but what are
>> you trying to accomplish with arguing from ignorance? You might as well
>> have said "the thingamabob is connected to the schizwoodle" up there for
>> the sense I can parse out of what you're saying. What's a "designed
>> backup system" -- whatever the heck that is -- have to do with a
>> disabled gene whose disabling shows a beneficial effect in people with
>> the disabled gene?
>>
>> The mutation clearly stands out in the studies, to a high probability.
>> The allele is inheritable. There is no "fluke" in 10-20% of the
>> population. And what are you going on about "backup system"? WHAT
>> backup system? The protein is mutated, truncated, clipped, prematurely
>> ended on translation. It's shorter. It's functioning in a way that's not
>> as bad as if it was the more "efficient" full-length gene.
>>
>> Feel free to reply to my next challenge.
>
>
> You misunderstand the debate format. I start the argument and then we
> reply back and forth until the arguement is settled.
Um, no. See rule IIB as put forth at the original post in this thread.
Message-id <bug7c...@enews1.newsguy.com>
=======BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL============
II. Structure
[...]
B. The debate will be an exchange of posts.
Each initial post will be a challenge, the follow-up a rebuttal.
(addendum #2)
For example:
Set 1: Post 1: NWM's challenge.
Post 2: Lilith's rebuttal.
Set 2: Post 3: Lilith's challenge.
Post 4: NWM's rebuttal.
Set 3: (etc)
1. There will be 10 challenge-rebuttal
Sets, at which time the debate will be ended. This means each
party gets to
challenge 5 times, and must write a
rebuttal 5 times. (addendum #3)
2. There will be no follow-up posting to
the rebuttals in the official structure of the debate. Just
challenge-rebuttal format. (addendum #6)
=======END QUOTED MATERIAL==============
In other words, once Lilith made her response, you get no rebuttal. It's
on to the next challenge, of which there are to be 10 in total.
Lilith agreed to these conditions in the orignal thread, at the following
message-id:
<75200cbc.03122...@posting.google.com>
Grinder, in message-id: <buf6b...@enews1.newsguy.com> said that you had
confirmed these rules by email. Was this a false assertion on his part?
> You can't change the
> debate topic. I am as educated as anyone on evolution so I don't
> appreciate you critisizing my knowledge. Maybe you should try to answer my
> questions. Playing dumb is not going to cut it. I said from the begining
> that I was not going to go easy on you. It is nothing personal. If you try
> to get out of this debate everyone is going to see it and it will reflect
> badly upon you like the last one. You know very well what a designed
> backup system is. It is exactly what it sounds like. A backup system that
> was designed into the human genome for if things go wrong. You have no way
> to tell a mutation caused the changes you talk about. You just assume that
> it must have been a mutation because you assume evolution can create
> things. Where is evidence that this is caused by a mutation and not
> something else more reasonable like a backup system? Did you see the
> protien get mutated youself? Who saw it? Where is the support for this
> theory?
>
> NM
You are ranging very close to personal attacks on Lilith in that
paragraph. I warn you not to do so; it does not bode well for your
debating abilities.
The rest of your assertions you can turn into debate challenges, if you
like. Lilith has no need to answer them, as they are not part of the
debate structure. It is better for you to attempt to respond to Lilith's
challenge. In message-id: <pan.2004.01.27....@terralink.net> I
summarized correspondence between Grinder and myself; you have until
midnight Central time Friday night to compose your response. You have been
granted the extension due to your own misunderstandings.
Lilith, you should obviously feel no need to respond to either this post
or to Nowhere Man's, unless you feel I have judged in error.
Nowhere Man
This is completly uncalled for and rediculous. Youre saying the topic
of the debate should change everytime someone posts. This is just
plain stupid. The whole point of a debate is to conclude an issue. You
just want to have Lillith throw her references up and run away. That
is not a real debate. It is just a statement of opinion. Are you
saying she cannot even answer my most basic questions? Thats how is
seems. Either you have to post so much that no one can respond to it
or you have to tell you opponent that he cant even respond to you.
Its not even smart. It is totally dishonest and it makes you look bad.
If you want a real DEBATE then I will give it you. If you want to go
on believing your lies than feel free to declare Lillith the winner
because I refuse to follow that stupid rule. What kind of a stupid
debate has a rule that says your opponent does not have to respond to
you? A fake debate. Nobody can win a real debate if they want to
support evolution. That is all you prove. If Lilith wants to debate
about mutations then I will do it. But you know that everyone will see
the flaws in evolution reasoning if we debate about it and that's why
made up that stupid rule which I never agreed to. And even if you
tricked me into agreeing to it it is still a stupid rule and not a
real debate.
NM
Jon Fleming
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
>This is completly uncalled for and rediculous. Youre saying the topic
>of the debate should change everytime someone posts.
It is a common and often used format of debating.
It is the format of debating that *YOU* and Lilith and the judges
*AGREED* *TO*.
It is the format of this debate.
Either continue under the rules of the debate, or forfeit.
Jon Fleming
Whoops. posted to the closed thread. My bad.
Nullifidian
> If you want to go
> on believing your lies than feel free to declare Lillith the winner
> because I refuse to follow that stupid rule.
Am I to understand by this statement that you refuse to follow the rules
as laid out for this debate?
You had every opportunity while you were cooking up your topic, ex parte,
to examine the rules posted both by Grinder and myself and call a halt
until you could negotiate terms which were acceptable to both you and
Lilith. The operative word being "negotiate." When two parties enter into
any sort of debate, they both traditionally have the right to suggest
terms, and when the suggested terms are not disputed, they're taken to be
acceptable. None of us could have possibly known that you would object
midway through the debate to terms which you had the *obligation* to
familiarize yourself with in the first place. If I may be blunt, defining
the terms and topic of the debate by oneself, ex parte, is not debate,
it's masturbation. And to continue the analogy, it's better if you didn't
do it in public, on this newsgroup.
This may be harsh, but I'm really getting sick of seeing you impugn the
character of your debate opponent and two judges, just because you don't
want to read things carefully. I don't want to see this debate closed,
but your latest response leaves us with precious little in the way of
options. If you're explicitly (not to mention petulantly) saying you're
not going to abide by the rules of the debate, then the only just things
we can do are either close the debate, and let you get started on a new
one with rules which you will probably craft to suit yourself and
yourself alone, or we can ask for Lilith's patience and generosity, and
allow you to change the rules of debate in midstream, with her permission
for all suggested changes.
Either of those options, however, will require a clear and explicit
statement from you as to what you think a formal, written debate *is.*
Please respond with what you think a "real debate" is, and perhaps we
will be able to finally move this debate towards some sort of resolution.
--
Nullifidian, a.a. #1774 (Remove NO SPAM to e-mail me.)
Member of the EAC Scientific Priesthood Division (Biology Dept.)
"If you have seen me cross myself, it was to Science, Art and Nature."
- Bela Bartok
Nowhere Man
>
> 3. Wittekoek ME, Moll E, Pimstone SN et al. A frequent mutation in the
> lipoprotein lipase gene (D9N) deteriorates the biochemical and
> clinical phenotype of familial hyperchoelsterolemia. Arterioscler
>
> 4. Knoblauch H, Bauerfeind A, Krahenbuhl C, Daury A, Rohde K, Bejanin
> S, Essioux L, Schuster H, Luft FC, Reich JG. Common haplotypes in five
> genes influence genetic variance of LDL and HDL cholesterol in the
> general population. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Jun 1; 11(12): 1477-85.
>
> Definitions:
>
> Haplotype: <genetics> The set, made up of one allele of each gene,
> comprising the genotype. (Cancerweb online dictionary)
>
> Polymorphism: <genetics> The regular and simultaneous occurrence in a
> single interbreeding population of two or more alleles of a gene,
> where the frequency of the rarer alleles is greater than can be
> explained by recurrent mutation alone (typically greater than 1%). The
> concept includes chromosome polymorphism. (Cancerweb online
> dictionary)
>
> ----------------
> Original text above this line is about 6.2 KB in text in Windows
> Notepad.
My response to Lillith's challenge: You are asking for me to provide
evidence that there have been no observed helpful mutations (which by
the way did not appear in your post). The problem is that anyone who
thinks about it can see that you cant provide evidence for a claim
that something does not exist. You can only prove me wrong by showing
that that thing does exist. So your challenge is oxymoronic.
My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
it turn into benificial changes.
NM
R.Schenck
(Nowhere Man) wrote:
>lil...@umich.edu (Lilith) wrote in message news:<75200cbc.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>> 1999: 99: 2901?2907.
>>
>> 3. Wittekoek ME, Moll E, Pimstone SN et al. A frequent mutation in the
>> lipoprotein lipase gene (D9N) deteriorates the biochemical and
>> clinical phenotype of familial hyperchoelsterolemia. Arterioscler
>> Thromb Vasc Biol 1999: 19: 2708?2713.
>>
>> 4. Knoblauch H, Bauerfeind A, Krahenbuhl C, Daury A, Rohde K, Bejanin
>> S, Essioux L, Schuster H, Luft FC, Reich JG. Common haplotypes in five
>> genes influence genetic variance of LDL and HDL cholesterol in the
>> general population. Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Jun 1; 11(12): 1477-85.
>>
>> Definitions:
>>
>> Haplotype: <genetics> The set, made up of one allele of each gene,
>> comprising the genotype. (Cancerweb online dictionary)
>>
>> Polymorphism: <genetics> The regular and simultaneous occurrence in a
>> single interbreeding population of two or more alleles of a gene,
>> where the frequency of the rarer alleles is greater than can be
>> explained by recurrent mutation alone (typically greater than 1%). The
>> concept includes chromosome polymorphism. (Cancerweb online
>> dictionary)
>>
>> ----------------
>> Original text above this line is about 6.2 KB in text in Windows
>> Notepad.
>
>
>My response to Lillith's challenge:
you lost the debate nitwit its over and you lost.
> You are asking for me to provide
>evidence that there have been no observed helpful mutations (which by
>the way did not appear in your post). The problem is that anyone who
>thinks about it can see that you cant provide evidence for a claim
>that something does not exist. You can only prove me wrong by showing
>that that thing does exist.
if you have no evidence for it at all then why did you think it was
true?
> So your challenge is oxymoronic.
there is nothing oxymoronic about it.
>My next challenge to Lillith:
you dont get to issue challenges you lost the debate. if she is
feeling frisky maybe she will answer you. wtf prevented you from
doing any of this before the deadline anyways? oh yeah, you had no
intention of debating anyone, you just wanted to stir things up.
>I do not believe that your eledged
>mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
>just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
>challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
>was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
>it turn into benificial changes.
you still do not understand the form and function of the debate, which
is irrelevant because you lost it. you wouldn't have gotten 'points'
for her not being able to show who observed this, the whole idea was
that someone who came along later woudl be able to say, well, thats a
stupid question, what a stupid little nowhereman. how the hell would
someone oberseve dna mutating anyway huh? we can't actually see dna,
anymore than we can see atoms and other compounds. only a complete
ignoramous (you) or a truly deceitful muck racker (you) would bother
to ask such an assinine silly pointless question. the simple fact is
only some people have this disease (i am pretnding/assuming that you
are refering to say the sickle cell beneficial mutation) and others do
not. there -has- been a mutation either way, and in some instances
the sickle cell trait is beneficial, in others the non sickle cell
trait is beneficial. but its preposterous to assume that the first
time it occured it had to have been seen or else it doesnt exist now.
and even tho i know you must've been checking the other postings to
the group but are pretending to continue this -closed- and -over-
debate, you should at least apologize for being a complete fool and
idiot this entire time like the judges (yes, remember those people,
they are the ones who said -you lost-) suggested you did (or at least
one of them). also the last time you posted something you said you
werent interested in continuing this debate (irrelevant since it's
over and -you lost-, uhm, -again-)and that when the rest of us were
ready we could ask you to have another debate, so posting here is even
-more- idiotic. originally you indicated that you hadnt lost and
werent losing but they everyone was being unfair so you were just
going to take you toys and leave. then you came along and said 'hey
judges, is it true like i heard, can i just respond to her arguemnt'
meaning that you suddenly (and yet still erronesouly) thought that you
could now somehow win the debate. so you have demonstrated that you
are, infact, an underhanded, sneaky, hypcritical, little lying moron.
Tom McDonald
NWM,
You made the claim that there were no mutations that were
helpful to individuals (N.B.: you didn't mention anything about
being helpful to the species). You clearly were persuaded to
that position by something. If it was by science, you should
present that evidence. If it was by something other than
science, you should present _that_; but be aware that
non-scientific evidence is only useful in its own realm, and cuts
no mustard in a discussion about science.
>
> My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
> mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
> just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
> challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
> was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
> it turn into benificial changes.
>
> NM
>
So you believe the benefit is caused by a 'back-up system'
designed into the human genome by God. Nifty. What scientific
principles do you base that on, and where, specifically, are the
scientific studies to be found that support your view.
BTW, you may have missed it, but the debate is over. The ruling
of the judges on this is on this ng, and you should be able to
figure out where to find it. You're not facing Lilith only now,
Nowhere Man; you're facing whoever can stomach you. There are no
time limits, no rules other than the normal ng rules and regs.
There is no one to appeal to if you feel put upon. You're on
your own, by your fault, by your own fault, by your own most
grievous fault.
Enjoy.
Tom McDonald
Frank Reichenbacher
The debate is over, you lost.
You are asking for me to provide
> evidence that there have been no observed helpful mutations (which by
> the way did not appear in your post).
Yes, we are. You could start by going to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html and presenting scientific
evidence that these are *not* examples of beneficial mutations.
The problem is that anyone who
> thinks about it can see that you cant provide evidence for a claim
> that something does not exist. You can only prove me wrong by showing
> that that thing does exist. So your challenge is oxymoronic.
>
> My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
> mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
> just a backup system designed by God into the human genome.
Using scientific evidence, please describe the characteristics of this
"backup system". Please describe the process by which it was created. Please
identify the agent(s) which created it.
Note that a good theory is the one that best explains the data. Please
describe the characteristics of the "backup system" theory which allow it to
explain the data better than the random mutation/natural selection theory.
Frank
Andrew Arensburger
> You're not facing Lilith only now,
> Nowhere Man; you're facing whoever can stomach you. There are no
> time limits, no rules other than the normal ng rules and regs.
Rules?! Ain't no rules on Usene<OOOMPH!>
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Be reasonable. Do it my way.
Seamus Ma' Cleriec
> mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
> just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
> challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
> was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
> it turn into benificial changes.
>
> NM
negative.
Describe the "backup system" and give evidence for it's existance and
mechanisms . Name someone who has actually seen such a "backup system"
in action.
Tedd Jacobs
"Andrew Arensburger" wrote...
> Tom McDonald wrote:
> > no rules other than the normal ng rules and regs.
>
> Rules?! Ain't no rules on Usene<OOOMPH!>
rule one: dont reveal konspiracies.
rule two: anyone violating rule one gets gang tackled, gagged & bagged.
--
Tedd "where are we going and why am i in this handbasket" Jacobs.
Louann Miller
Ma' Cleriec) wrote:
>some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message > My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
>> mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
>> just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
>> challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
>> was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
>> it turn into benificial changes.
>>
>> NM
>Fine, AFAIAC- I did have a problem with Lilith having you prove a
>negative.
Keep in mind that he's the one who asserted a negative (no beneficial
mutations, period) in the first place. And further asserted, at least
skating the edge of his own rules if not breaking them outright, that
he didn't have to provide any backup for that assertion.
Andy Groves
<snip>
Since the debate is now over and NWM officially ruled to have lost, I
will jump in herre:
>
>
> My response to Lillith's challenge: You are asking for me to provide
> evidence that there have been no observed helpful mutations (which by
> the way did not appear in your post). The problem is that anyone who
> thinks about it can see that you cant provide evidence for a claim
> that something does not exist. You can only prove me wrong by showing
> that that thing does exist. So your challenge is oxymoronic.
Actually, your claim - that beneficial mutations do not exist - is the
claim that is moronic, with no "oxy" in sight. You made a universal
claim. That means that you have knowledge of every mutation that
exists, and know for a fact that none are beneficial. Do you now see
how silly that is?
If you make a universal claim, you should be prepared to back it up or
withdraw it.
> My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
> mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
> just a backup system designed by God into the human genome.
Then you must explain why some individuals have this mutation, and
others do not, and why the proportion of individuals that have the
mutation is different in different populations. you must also, by your
own stupid criteria below, provide evidence that you or someone else
personally witnessed God designing this mutation.
> I
> challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
> was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
> it turn into benificial changes.
Ahh... the acceptance of personal revelation as the only true
evidence. As has been pointed out many, many, many times in this
group, personal revelation is not the only acceptable standard of
evidence. If it was, forensic science would never be allwoed in
courtrooms. Do you agree that indirect evidence - such as finger
prints, bloodstains, hair and semen samples, etc - should be admitted
as evidence in court? If so, then why do you dismiss other similar
forms of evidence?
Andy
John Wilkins
> Tom McDonald <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
> > You're not facing Lilith only now,
> > Nowhere Man; you're facing whoever can stomach you. There are no
> > time limits, no rules other than the normal ng rules and regs.
>
> Rules?! Ain't no rules on Usene<OOOMPH!>
[Butch] If he kills me, shoot him.
[Sundance] OK.
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Von Smith
> >>
> >> NM
> >Fine, AFAIAC- I did have a problem with Lilith having you prove a
> >negative.
>
> Keep in mind that he's the one who asserted a negative (no beneficial
> mutations, period) in the first place. And further asserted, at least
> skating the edge of his own rules if not breaking them outright, that
> he didn't have to provide any backup for that assertion.
>
Seamus isn't the first poster to object that Lilith's challenge was an
unreasonable demand that NWM prove a negative. I think such
objections, while sounding plausible, are unfair in this particular
case for a couple reasons:
1) Lilith did not demand that NWM prove a negative claim; she merely
asked that he justify it with evidence, which is not the same thing at
all. Negative claims cannot be proven, but they *can* be more or less
warranted as default positions based on what we know. To deny this
leads to the conclusion that all unfalsified negative claims are
equally warranted, and I don't think anyone but a strict logical
empiricist would insist on such a position.
The claim that there is no Jupiter-sized planet with an orbit between
Venus' and Earth's is a negative claim, and hence "unprovable". But
it can be amply justified by the available evidence. The claim that
there is no Jupiter-sized planet orbiting Beta Cygnae would be tough
to decide either way, although one could still make a reasonable
attempt to support it based on available observations. The claim that
there is no Jupiter-sized planet anywhere in the Andromeda galaxy,
even assuming it has not already been falsified, is still sufficiently
at odds with what we know for us to not only conclude that it is an
unwarranted assertion, but even to reject it as highly improbable.
I think Dr. Taylor is entitled to the generous interpretation of her
question as demanding that NWM show how his position is more like
claiming no gas giant between Venus and Earth than claiming no gas
giant anywhere in Andromeda. Unless I miss my guess, she would
probably not have objected had NWM construed and responded to her
challenge in such a manner.
2) Even worse for NWM, there are numerous confirmed observations of
what are generally accepted by biologists to be beneficial mutations,
and so his negative claim entails a rejection of their conclusions.
NWM's position is more like claiming that there is no Jupiter-sized
planet between Mars and Saturn. In both cases the affirmative is too
well-supported for the negative to be a viable null hypothesis. For
his claim to be even rational, let alone warranted, he needs to
confront the evidence and explain why he doesn't think it shows that
Jupiter is really there. IMO it is no more unfair to demand that
beneficial-mutation deniers substantiate their claims than it is to
demand this of Jupiter deniers, HIV/AIDS-deniers, or Holocaust
deniers.
So no, I respectfully disagree with those who objected to Lilith's
challenge as some sort of dirty trick. It is perfectly legitimate to
challenge NWM's claim and demand that he provide evidence to support
it, given our current state of knowledge about genetics.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Tom McDonald
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Tom McDonald <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You're not facing Lilith only now,
>>>Nowhere Man; you're facing whoever can stomach you. There are no
>>>time limits, no rules other than the normal ng rules and regs.
>>
>> Rules?! Ain't no rules on Usene<OOOMPH!>
>
>
> [Butch] If he kills me, shoot him.
>
> [Sundance] OK.
[Butch, in bit from cutting room floor] Hell, shoot 'im anyway.
Seamus Ma' Cleriec
I see & saw your your point , however the way that the challenge was
phrased allowed NWM wiggle room to respond as he did by challenging
the mechanism, rather than the actual reality of beneficial mutations
occuring.
In other words, NWM contends that there are beneficial backups which
are mysteriously applied as needed to increase adaptability, hence no
beneficial mutations exist == only beneficial *backups*. Of course he
has yet to show mechanism and evidence for such backups.
BTW are these tape, floppy or cd backups ;> ?
Seamus
Matt Silberstein
some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man):
[snip]
>My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
>mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
>just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
>challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
>was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
>it turn into benificial changes.
I claim my points, I call this pitiful excuse. He now demands
that scientists observe the actual mutation as it occurs. Next he
will require observation of each and every mutation.
--
Matt Silberstein
I want to be different, I just don't want to change.
catshark
Cleriec) wrote:
[...]
>In other words, NWM contends that there are beneficial backups which
>are mysteriously applied as needed to increase adaptability, hence no
>beneficial mutations exist == only beneficial *backups*. Of course he
>has yet to show mechanism and evidence for such backups.
Which, of course, is a violation of the rules posted at the top of this
thread:
C. Challenges
1. A Challenge is only one point offered
within one sentence of under 100 words,
and must be supported by reference to
peer-reviewed scientific literature or
data.
>
>BTW are these tape, floppy or cd backups ;> ?
>Seamus
Flashcards . . . like on the Mars rovers.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Jon Fleming
<matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from
>some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man):
>
>[snip]
>
>>My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
>>mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
>>just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
>>challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
>>was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
>>it turn into benificial changes.
>
>I claim my points, I call this pitiful excuse. He now demands
>that scientists observe the actual mutation as it occurs. Next he
>will require observation of each and every mutation.
Well, observed or not, it's always just a theory <grin> that the
mutation happened, albeit a theory so well-supported by evidence that
we may as well call it a fact. Even naked-eye observation by a
scientist with incredible vision wouldn't _prove_ it in the
mathematical sense.
However, as with all scientific theories, it could in principle be
overturned. All NM has to come up with is a better theory, explaining
all the extant evidence in terms of his "backup system" theory,
including specification of the mechanism of how it operates, and do it
in a simpler and more powerful way than the current theory. Since the
debate is formally over he could even use more than 15K to do so!
Matt Silberstein
In this case it is closer to providing an alternative to orbits to
explain our observations of the Moon than an alternative to gravity as
an explanation of orbits.
Jon Fleming
Agreed.
Chris Thompson
> In talk.origins I read this message from
> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man):
>
> [snip]
>
> >My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
> >mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
> >just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
> >challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
> >was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
> >it turn into benificial changes.
>
> I claim my points, I call this pitiful excuse. He now demands
> that scientists observe the actual mutation as it occurs. Next he
> will require observation of each and every mutation.
I can't believe anyone is still humoring that pathetic little turd.
Chris
Matt Silberstein
(Chris Thompson):
I don't see why you refer to me that way? After all, I was the
one amused.
Chris Thompson
No problem with that at all. Just in case you were rounding up some
more Loki points: NWM is the PLT.
But looking up the thread, there are people who seem to be taking him
seriously.
Chris
Matt Silberstein
(Chris Thompson):
>Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<hq46205dfml41drv1...@4ax.com>...
>> In talk.origins I read this message from rockw...@hotmail.com
>> (Chris Thompson):
>>
>> >Matt Silberstein <matts...@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote in message news:<gij42014l6k3jbkrl...@4ax.com>...
>> >> In talk.origins I read this message from
>> >> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man):
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> >My next challenge to Lillith: I do not believe that your eledged
>> >> >mutation is what cause these benificial changes. I believe this is
>> >> >just a backup system designed by God into the human genome. I
>> >> >challenge you to tell when this mutation was observed happening. What
>> >> >was the scientist's name who watched the actual DNA mutate and watched
>> >> >it turn into benificial changes.
>> >>
>> >> I claim my points, I call this pitiful excuse. He now demands
>> >> that scientists observe the actual mutation as it occurs. Next he
>> >> will require observation of each and every mutation.
>> >
>> >I can't believe anyone is still humoring that pathetic little turd.
>>
>> I don't see why you refer to me that way? After all, I was the
>> one amused.
>
>No problem with that at all. Just in case you were rounding up some
>more Loki points: NWM is the PLT.
Yeah, I kind of did hope you would think I was serious. And, no,
I did not misunderstand you.
>But looking up the thread, there are people who seem to be taking him
>seriously.
Not him, his "class".