Victory for evolution in Texas

[RandomGuy]

That your willingness to believe that “speciation has been proven” is clouding your judgement does not make my disagreement with that belief a lie; I simply disagree with the claim.

Define "species". If you disagree with the claim, then you MUST have a definition of what a new "species" would be.

[baseline bum]

There's some that can't be explained. Here me out.

I don't get the logic of "This can't be explained... so here's the explanation".

[MannyIsGod]

I don't get the logic of "This can't be explained... so here's the explanation".

[Phenomanul]

Funny. I thought they threw that out because it's unverifiable/unfalsifiable. How would you go about proving/disproving the existence of God?

I’ve asked this on several occasions; how can the natural tools provided by the scientific toolset prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural GOD? Again, you’re just reinforcing the notion that Science is ill-equipped (unequipped) to answer the origins riddle, if in fact a Creator were the one true answer (unfalsifiable or not).

But that's a pretty simplistic view of genetics and wrong too.
There might be some things we still don't know and some that are just being found out (such as the discovery a couple of years ago of the REST protein being central in the process of turning genes on and off).
One thing we know is that genomes do evolve over time. The "uphill" route is normally provided by duplicate genes with a ulative effect, which create a distinctive phenotype.

You also skip over the fact that salient genetic mutations are a process that takes millions of years. Duplicate genes average 0.01 per gene per million years (which is considered a 'high-rate', even though it looks like forever). Extrapolating experiments is not a choice, but the only option.
That doesn't mean the experiments are wrong, or that the observations are incorrect. We do have a flora and fauna that dates back in cases to millions of years, and as such, they've been the focus of studies. Technological advances in fossil research has also contributed in strengthening the theory, and has allowed to advance the study of genetics evolution.

There's still debates as to whether evolution is strictly genetic or is dominated by entire organisms. Different types of speciation are fairly well do ented (ie: Insular dwarfism), which would indicate that environmental constrains have also some sort of part in it.

Lenski did the micro view because that's the only thing that's doable in a lab setting within a lifetime. He used that micro view to test ideas seen in the macro view, and that has been researched through fossils, etc, which is the only current humanly possible way to get that information. Those results actually strengthened the theory, they didn't find fault in it.

Wait, wait, wait... that's fresh... most of what you all do here is simplify the processes involved in genetics. If anything, I'm the one trying to assert that genetics is thousands of times more complicated than the way your typical Evolutionist would wish to view it. Afterall, many of them simply accept the theory without ever having taken multiple, or even a single course in either microbiology, molecular genetics, or organic chemistry (some more fallacy of consensus gentium for our resident argumentative fallacy expert, RG)...

My whole qualm with RG's bold "debunked" claim is that:

No, I don’t believe that Lenski has created a new species... his variant strains are still E. coli bacteria, down to the genus and species...

You all can yell all you all want but the fact remains that for NeoDarwinian speciation to be proven true one would have to produce a new species [with characterization at a genetic level]... Don't give me any of this "in transit" crap evidence, because frankly, it isn’t enough... and an honest look from the Scientific Method itself would assert as much, and require more than just extrapolated speculation...

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate [regardless of the fact that the dynamics for beneficial gamete mutation and propagation in sexual organisms are far more restrictive than the propagation dynamics found in asexual organisms], and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!! Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago… [I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]

Again, you all are touting the observations of Lenski's experiments, but don't really understand the ramifications it would have on your very own evolutionary models...

This is just ONE method by which mutations of all kinds add to genomes, and change them over time. Your claim is simply not bourne out by modern genetics.

I also pointed out that we have several instances of entirely new species arising in the short time we have been aware enough to be paying attention, mostly plants, because their ability to add new chromosomes (polyploidy) is greater than that of animals.

FYI… Polyploidy is a perfect example of microevolution that conveniently borrows ‘pre-existing’ genetic information… Evolution contends that the incorporation of new information is what allows a species to evolve… if the information is pre-existing it can’t also be new.

All that is required to make new species is geographic isolation and time. Take one species, and move one part to one area, and another to someplace far away, as happens natually through simple movement, and eventually you get two populations of creatures who can no longer interbreed.

So by your logic North Koreans will eventually be unable to breed with the rest of the world’s population?

English is a germanic language. Old High German and Old High English were close enough to be mutually understood. Given enough time and isolation, modern English speakers, und moderne Deutsche Spraecher, koennen nicht einander verstehen.

Genetic information in this regard is similar to the way new languages develop.

Except that genetic information is more than just a language… it is a programming language… Far more complex and completely cross-linked with itself… our DNA code does far more than simply convey a message; it is able to create function, design and form.

It isn't your disagreement with me that causes me to accuse you of lying.

It is that you constantly state things that are contrary to fact that cause me to accuse you of lying. The things you state are provably wrong.

The worst thing you do in terms of lying is to distort the argument and assertions of others.

I have repeatly shown exactly how you commit these strawman arguments and pointed you to the logical structure of these fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Specifically you commit, as if it is second nature, these two specific logical fallacies on a repeated and constant basis:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Your post here is filled with them.

OPINION: I said Lenski’s experiment had not definitely proven speciation.

OPINION: You called me a liar and said his experiment had indeed proven speciation.

FACT: I then elaborated that despite your claim Lenski still had E. coli cultures in his lab, not some new species…

You now resort to pointing out my argument is built on a strawman? How so? Proof of speciation [or lack therof] is the argument itself. I recognize the beauty and elegance of Lenski’s experiment, but even I know that the claims from his data set can be of a subjective nature… You want to take them as authoritative fact. While that’s your prerogative, you can’t claim that my rejection of his claim is “provably wrong” when the claim itself is subjective…

Define "species". If you disagree with the claim, then you MUST have a definition of what a new "species" would be.

Ah… so now you see why the claim is subjective…

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Now do your semantical magic...

[MannyIsGod]

Ah yes, the old Phenomenal supernatural argument. Why believe things occur within one set of rules when you can just create some magical new rules instead?

[mingus]

I don't get the logic of "This can't be explained... so here's the explanation".

LOL. I get your point man. But it's my explanation. Not the explanation. And my experience that I posted led me to believe that.

I mean some people will do everything and anything they can to justify a disbelief in God. "you see what you want to see." is that necessarily always the explanation? I can just as easily say you'll choose not to believe what youve conditioned yourself not to believe or been conditioned not to believe.

[Blake]

I’ve asked this on several occasions; how can the natural tools provided by the scientific toolset prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural GOD?

you've gotten an answer on numerous occasions. You just don't like the answer regarding "disproving God"

Ah… so now you see why the claim is subjective…

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Now do your semantical magic...

lol getting somewhere.

[spursncowboys]

I don't know enough about Protestantism or Protestants for that matter to judge. There aren't many where I live. The churches I've attended and the Catholics I know who are many don't believe that.

That's a huge generalization on protestants from a molestation of the teachings of old school calvinists. It's very extreme. However this is pretty common for people to think that. That is where the "Protestant work ethic" phrase comes from. I don't know if any actually use that or teach that. I know that churches I have gone to and friends of different Christian faiths all feel that God wants you to have a good work ethic and hing is one of the most important things to do as a christian. That's not to mean he to the church, but to any kind of activity that is from god's teaching. Voluteer, charity, etc.

[Blake]

LOL. I get your point man. But it's my explanation. Not the explanation. And my experience that I posted led me to believe that.

I mean some people will do everything and anything they can to justify a disbelief in God. "you see what you want to see." is that necessarily always the explanation? I can just as easily say you'll choose not to believe what youve conditioned yourself not to believe or been conditioned not to believe.

It didn't take much conditioning for me to lol at seeing Jesus in a tortilla.

[mingus]

It didn't take much conditioning for me to lol at seeing Jesus in a tortilla.

Some of that a lot of that is definitely bogus, but said picture was so moving and the said cir stances around it so amazing that my aunt and cousins became religious after seeing it. They were athiests before that.

And there are plenty, plenty of personal, private experiences\encounters people have had with God. My story is only one.

[Winehole23]

Ridicule of (outgroup) with pointed fingers is a distinctly simian activity. So is laughing at others. You sure that's not conditioned?

[Blake]

Some of that a lot of that is definitely bogus, but said picture was so moving and the said cir stances around it so amazing that my aunt and cousins became religious after seeing it. They were athiests before that.

And there are plenty, plenty of personal, private experiences\encounters people have had with God. My story is only one.

does Mary only show up for Catholic events, or is she also available for Bar Mitzvahs?

[Proxy]

Some of that a lot of that is definitely bogus, but said picture was so moving and the said cir stances around it so amazing that my aunt and cousins became religious after seeing it. They were athiests before that.

And there are plenty, plenty of personal, private experiences\encounters people have had with God. My story is only one.

It's all in your mind. If you grew up not knowing of Jesus, or Christianity, you wouldn't label those things you saw. I doubt that all of the people who claim to see Jesus are lying... but just because you see it, doesn't make it real.

[Blake]

Ridicule of (outgroup) with pointed fingers is a distinctly simian activity. So is laughing at others. You sure that's not conditioned?

instinctive behavior in this case, imo

[Winehole23]

hmm

[RandomGuy]

[long post omitted for sake of brevity]
Ah… so now you see why the claim is subjective…

Now we’re getting somewhere…

Now do your semantical magic...

I noticed you have glossed over, at least twice here, this bit:

---------------------------------------------
Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.

TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation (click here for link fully explaining this process) doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a point mutation. (click here for an explanation of this process)
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.
-----------------------------------------------

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

[clambake]

has he brought up the ouija board yet?

[RandomGuy]

All that is required to make new species is geographic isolation and time. Take one species, and move one part to one area, and another to someplace far away, as happens natually through simple movement, and eventually you get two populations of creatures who can no longer interbreed.

So by your logic North Koreans will eventually be unable to breed with the rest of the world’s population?

Well this isn't *my* logic specifically it is one of the more commonly understood methods of speciation.

The answer to your question, is yes, eventually North Koreans would be unable to breed with the rest of the worlds population.

Assuming:
1) No genetic exchange with the rest of humanity.
2) Prolonged genetic isolation.

This sets aside that any period of isolation long enough to produce a new species of human is highly improbable, given human lifespans.

There are also cases where different groups of organisms, although *able* to produce viable offspring, don't produce hybrid offspring simply because of sexual selection. Insects that rely on phermones are a good example. If a potential mate produced the wrong kind of phermone, it would not be appealing to members of the opposite sex. Such cases, while not representing an absolute barrier to hybridization, represent a practical barrier unlikely to be crossed. Most working definitions of "species" would call the two populations of bugs to be different species, although they would be similar in form and genetics.

[RandomGuy]

Wait, wait, wait... that's fresh... most of what you all do here is simplify the processes involved in genetics. If anything, I'm the one trying to assert that genetics is thousands of times more complicated than the way your typical Evolutionist would wish to view it. Afterall, many of them simply accept the theory without ever having taken multiple, or even a single course in either microbiology, molecular genetics, or organic chemistry (some more fallacy of consensus gentium for our resident argumentative fallacy expert, RG)...

The specific logical fallacy would be:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...to-belief.html

Appeal to Belief:
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

1) Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2) Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

1) "consensus gentium" is not a specific logical fallacy, it is a theory of truth from what I read.
2) When an overwhelming number of scientists who have studied something their entire lives in great detail, building on entire other lifetimes of study, all think that a particular theory is the one most likely to be representative of reality, that does indicate to any rational person that there is a pretty good likelihood the theory is a good one.

I rely on the advice and opinion of experts all the time, simply because they are experts, and believing them is reasonable, given no contravening evidence.

[Phenomanul]

I noticed you have glossed over, at least twice here, this bit:

---------------------------------------------
Lets take a quick lesson in genetics. I will simplify a bit.
TATATA = Enzyme A gene.
TATAGA = Enzyme B gene.

Organism requires enzyme A, and absence of this gene is a lethal mutation.

A sequence mutation (click here for link fully explaining this process) doubles the length of this gene, doubling the amount of enzyme A produced.
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATATA(stop/start sequence)

At some point, the second copy gets a point mutation. (click here for an explanation of this process)
TATATA(stop/start sequence)TATAGA(stop/start sequence)

The organism now makes both Enzyme A and Enzyme B.

New information has been added to the genome, contrary to the commonly held belief/assertion of creationists that mutation can only destroy information, not create it.
-----------------------------------------------

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

Your simplification in this exercise it exactly what I'm arguing against...

Genes aren't translated/transcribed only linearly... they are cut up by other genes, or as a response to environmental factors and expressed in many more ways than just the one... Recent discoveries of these gene networks (which apparently exist in all organisms) have made the evolutionary 'uphill' climb far steeper than we originally thought...

For example, your exercise above looks only at the forward translation of that short genetic segment, but does so without assessing the consequences it may have on how it is translated after other genes try to give it more instruction...

While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided... you don't know if the change is actually deleterious or not. Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...

BTW I didn't gloss over this post... you must admit that your inclusion of this cut/paste argument was rather facetious when you first posted it... it wasn't even a direct response to my contention that Macroevolution remains unproven... To me at least, this argument was initially a tangent...

I wasn't purposely trying to ignore you... In fact, when you consider all the people that demand responses from me you would have to understand the fact that I can only address so much, and can't physically respond to everything... good thing I have posters such as Blake on ignore in these threads... His posts amount to nothing more than personal attacks... You at least tend to remain civil [when you're not calling me a liar and the such ]...

[RandomGuy]

Your simplification in this exercise it exactly what I'm arguing against...

Genes aren't translated/transcribed only linearly... they are cut up by other genes, or as a response to environmental factors and expressed in many more ways than just the one... Recent discoveries of these gene networks (which apparently exist in all organisms) have made the evolutionary 'uphill' climb far steeper than we originally thought...

For example, your exercise above looks only at the forward translation of that short genetic segment, but does so without assessing the consequences it may have on how it is translated after other genes try to give it more instruction...

While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided... you don't know if the change is actually deleterious or not. Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...

BTW I didn't gloss over this post... you must admit that your inclusion of this cut/paste argument was rather facetious when you first posted it... it wasn't even a direct response to my contention that Macroevolution remains unproven... To me at least, this argument was initially a tangent...

I wasn't purposely trying to ignore you... In fact, when you consider all the people that demand responses from me you would have to understand the fact that I can only address so much, and can't physically respond to everything... good thing I have posters such as Blake on ignore in these threads... His posts amount to nothing more than personal attacks... You at least tend to remain civil [when you're not calling me a liar and the such ]...

"I don't like simplification" is not an answer to what I asked.

The example, although shortened, VERY clearly adhered to known methods of mutation, as the links demonstrated.

Now, answer the question as asked.

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

[Phenomanul]

Ah yes, the old Phenomenal supernatural argument. Why believe things occur within one set of rules when you can just create some magical new rules instead?

Ahem... the word supernatural existed long before you and I were born...

And by its very definition, it implies exactly what I posted above... sorry if I'm the one that has to break it down for you...

Can the natural laws govern something/anything which by very definition supercedes it? Absolutely NOT.

Nice drive by BTW...

[DarrinS]

"I don't like simplification" is not an answer to what I asked.

The example, although shortened, VERY clearly adhered to known methods of mutation, as the links demonstrated.

Now, answer the question as asked.

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

Uh, he said yes.

While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided... you don't know if the change is actually deleterious or not. Where deleterious refers to whether or not the change is harmful to the organism, and not whether information was 'deleted' from the genome...
...

[Phenomanul]

"I don't like simplification" is not an answer to what I asked.

The example, although shortened, VERY clearly adhered to known methods of mutation, as the links demonstrated.

Now, answer the question as asked.

Yes, or no, did the above process create *new* information in the genome of this organism?

I did answer... very clearly, in fact... [hand to the face... "I hate it when he does this condescending, speaking to a 'child' crap..." - you do this every time...]

While the information IS "new" under the narrow context you've provided...

You apparently don't understand the genetic ramifications of your own example, and or the significance of the word 'deleterious' in genetic context... who's the one glossing over arguments here?

[Phenomanul]

Anyways, I've got a couple of errands I need to run... I'm out [I guess I need ChumpDumper's permission to do so?]