Quick creationists! Come up with something!

[Shastafarian]

A process called adaptation. Otherwise every single base-pair mutation would qualify the organism as a different species which is simply not the case.

That's not true at all. There are different classes of mutations. The ones that actually change something in the morphology are rare. Ones that increase fitness propagate and if there is an external stimuli (an antibiotic for example) the mutations that increase fitness will be passed on. It's the same process but just has a different mechanism. That's why I said the mechanism doesn't really matter.

There are ways around that in a lab. Needless to say, two separate data sets are required to prove the theory in both classes of organisms and conclusions drawn from each set should remain separate even when most would prefer to ignore the reasons why that would be required.

I'm not saying we can prove evolution in us based on do ented evolution in bacteria. But the processes in both are similar.

[Phenomanul]

That's not true at all. There are different classes of mutations. The ones that actually change something in the morphology are rare. Ones that increase fitness propagate and if there is an external stimuli (an antibiotic for example) the mutations that increase fitness will be passed on. It's the same process but just has a different mechanism. That's why I said the mechanism doesn't really matter.

Umm... that's what I just said.

The deal with evolution is that you have to prove that genotypic changes are solely the result of random mutation. That's because, most of the other gene altering processes splice information already present somewhere in the genome... one would be incorrect in classifying those changes in phenotype, or even several clusters of changes, as speciation - which is exactly what most people rush to do.

I'm not saying we can prove evolution in us based on do ented evolution in bacteria. But the processes in both are similar.

Similar but not identical.

[RandomGuy]

How did I know someone would piggy back off of the Internet Rules thread to 'boost' their pro-evolution worldview back in this thread... you all are like clock work (I guess I am too by responding). Is pasting this link your way of suggesting you've won the argument? Ironic... no?

I'm very familiar with Lenski's experiment, and the history of that dialogue on its way to becoming a 'wiki-legend'. Suffice it to say that the Conservapedia guy was about as ill-prepared and inept as can be to enter a discussion of that nature... he didn't even read Lenski's work... wth?? He unwillingly became a redux incarnation of William Jennings Bryan and his inept role in the in/famous Scopes Trial... albeit on a less publicized scale.

Unfortunately for your camp and what they try to claim from Lenski's well do ented work is that conclusive proof of evolution is still being sought in the genome of the citrate-tolerant E.Coli strain. Fortunately for my camp, Lenksi's do entation is thorough and elegant enough to point out two aspects of his project (even he mentions this much) that don't allow for everyone to simpy claim... "Hoorray! We finally proved Evolution!!!"

Evolution can be proven only if mutations were singled out as the sole driver for the change that allowed E.Coli to develop tolerance to a citrate environment. There are over 15 do ented ways in which genetic information can recombine to form "new" material. Most of these processes reverse themselves as part of the overall translation or replication process but every now and then our genes can purposefully absorb other material found within other locations of the genome. These processes are slow and infrequent in most species but occur with greater frequency in other Taxidermic families... such as E-genus bacteria, or my favorite family of the animal kingdom... the Canines.

More importantly, we can't ignore the fact that Lenski and his staff are avid participants in this lifelong experiment. They have allowed themselves to become a significant factor. I'm not saying his team staged the results or falsified the data, far from it. But much like the Miller-Urey experiment before it, or the fruit fly experiments, one cannot simply toss out the scientist's input (his many tinkerings/ selective changes / population segregations/isolations etc...) from the assessment of the data when drawing conclusions from it. If you read about the methods Lenski's team used, and their approach do the personnel involved not participate in a designer-like role? The moment one interferes with what is strictly supposed to be an "observe and measure" task the experiment has taken on a new factor... human analysis and interjection. Much like quality control in a manufacturing facility, or the control of the kinetic parameters in a reaction, human input is very much a part of the equation.

Not to be forgotten is the fact that E.Coli bacteria are asexual organisms... where most large animal species are sexual. This is huge. The genetic mechanisms, the overall dynamics of gene transmission, and the implications on natural selection from this very simple distinction are significant when it comes to concluding that results from one class of organisms prescribes the behavior for another... in light of an all-encompassing theory like Evolution.

Having said that... I truly believe that Lenski genuinely wants to find that elusive evolutionary process in his 'miraculous' citrate tolerant E.Coli strain, unlike other agenda driven experiments out there... He has the strain in his possession; all he has to do now is systematically rule out the possibility that the other genetic recombination processes were not responsible for the strains' remarkable adaptation. If subsequent data soundly supports that conclusion then he will have taken a major step towards validating one of biology's most controversial theories. His teams are undertaking that very task now.

Now don't get all worked-up from my comments above... I know you're going to want to splice and dice my response and counter every single sentence with something that supports your own worldview. I don't have the time for that nor feel like entering a pissing match... and since we never see eye-to-eye on anything concerning this topic. Why bother? Pride? nah... not this time.

I have no doubt that once Lenski validates his research, the goalposts will be moved again by the creation "scientists", who will then either demand proof impossible to provide, or simply dismiss the results as some hoax.

People like mouse would never accept it, no matter how solid the science is anyway. S'all good.

[RandomGuy]

Another problematic bit for creationists is the human chromosome and its 42 pairs.

Most other primates have 43 pairs.

This is something of a problem for evolutionary theory as mutations that throw out entire chromosomes are invariably fatal.

Creationist theory can easily say "AHA, that is because it was just made that way!"

Oddly enough, when we actually get into the human genome, we discover why evolutionary theory is superior to the creationist theory, because we can use the evolutionary theory to actually predict things and test them.

Since leaving out an entire chromosome is fatal, and we are obviously here, the information MUST have been retained somewhere, if we and modern primates did indeed have a recent common ancestor.

The most obvious way to retain information from a chromosome, but reduce the number of them is to fuse two of them somehow.

Care to guess what we found when we went in and looked at the gene sequence? You got it. Two chromosomes were quite clearly fused.

Why would God create our genome this way to make it LOOK like two chromosomes just fused?

Why bother to make it look like we had common ancestors with primates?

[RandomGuy]

Umm... that's what I just said.

The deal with evolution is that you have to prove that genotypic changes are solely the result of random mutation. That's because, most of the other gene altering processes splice information already present somewhere in the genome... one would be incorrect in classifying those changes in phenotype, or even several clusters of changes, as speciation - which is exactly what most people rush to do.

Similar but not identical.

http://immuneweb.xxmu.edu.cn/Genetic...lysis/ch16.pdf

The mechanisms of mutation are quite well understood and do ented.

For mutations to be as rare as posited by the creationists, we would not see cancers.

Since we do have cancers, we have pretty straightforward evidence that mutation and genetic damage is not altogether uncommon.

To think that the same types of affects that damage cell genetic information ONLY affect non-reproductive tissue kind seems illogical to me.

[Phenomanul]

http://immuneweb.xxmu.edu.cn/Genetic...lysis/ch16.pdf

The mechanisms of mutation are quite well understood and do ented.

For mutations to be as rare as posited by the creationists, we would not see cancers.

Since we do have cancers, we have pretty straightforward evidence that mutation and genetic damage is not altogether uncommon.

To think that the same types of affects that damage cell genetic information ONLY affect non-reproductive tissue kind seems illogical to me.

But you've just answered your own conundrum; one I've stated on at least two occasions in this thread. Mutations are mostly deleterious in nature and harmful to the survival of the affected organism. In fact, genetic changes brought about by the random tinkering of our genomes from radiation, translation errors, or other mutagenic inducers almost always bring about destruction, not the creation of constructive information. Mutation is a degenerative process. And yet, we are led to believe that an enormous series of beneficial, constructive mutations (billions upon billions in fact) occurred in the genetic past of every organism. The worst part is that the genomes of earth's smallest, simplest organisms aren't necessarily smaller than that of large complex ones (i.e. it's not a alative root process).

As for your other comment. The widespread existence of cancer constantly negates the notion that mutation somehow drives the biological pathway for improvement. That's why it is fundamentally important that science properly categorize adaptions. Genetic changes stemming from the reorganization of existing genetic material cannot and should never be construed as evolution.

[Duff McCartney]

"Miracles by their definition are meaningless...only what can happen does happen."

[Wild Cobra]

Why bother to make it look like we had common ancestors with primates?

I don't know. Ever compare the genetics of Arabica coffee and Columbian? they look alike, but are noit genetically similar.

Just another puzzle in nature to solve.

Nobody has answered my question yet, or I missed the response.

Did God evolve or was she created?

[Duff McCartney]

Did God evolve or was she created?

Maybe...you'd have to consult the Vedas.

[RandomGuy]

Mutations are mostly deleterious in nature and harmful to the survival of the affected organism.

And yet, we are led to believe that an enormous series of beneficial, constructive mutations (billions upon billions in fact) occurred in the genetic past of every organism. The worst part is that the genomes of earth's smallest, simplest organisms aren't necessarily smaller than that of large complex ones (i.e. it's not a alative root process).

Poker hands are mostly deleterious in nature and cause people to lose poker hands when they draw them.

And yet, we are led to believe that a series of beneficial cards can be drawn to get a royal flush, and that in all the poker hands ever played there have been many "royal flush" hands drawn.

[RandomGuy]

But you've just answered your own conundrum; one I've stated on at least two occasions in this thread. Mutations are mostly deleterious in nature and harmful to the survival of the affected organism. In fact, genetic changes brought about by the random tinkering of our genomes from radiation, translation errors, or other mutagenic inducers almost always bring about destruction, not the creation of constructive information. Mutation is a degenerative process. And yet, we are led to believe that an enormous series of beneficial, constructive mutations (billions upon billions in fact) occurred in the genetic past of every organism. The worst part is that the genomes of earth's smallest, simplest organisms aren't necessarily smaller than that of large complex ones (i.e. it's not a alative root process).

As for your other comment. The widespread existence of cancer constantly negates the notion that mutation somehow drives the biological pathway for improvement. That's why it is fundamentally important that science properly categorize adaptions. Genetic changes stemming from the reorganization of existing genetic material cannot and should never be construed as evolution.

That is actually a distortion about what the modern understanding of mutation is.

Mutation is not strictly a degenerative process.

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this, as I understand it, or you simply don't seem to understand the processes of mutation. I can't figure out which it is.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe...you'd have to consult the Vedas.

I ask that question to make people think. If you believe one way or the other, it still comes down to evolution. Or am I wrong?

[Phenomanul]

Poker hands are mostly deleterious in nature and cause people to lose poker hands when they draw them.

And yet, we are led to believe that a series of beneficial cards can be drawn to get a royal flush, and that in all the poker hands ever played there have been many "royal flush" hands drawn.

Bad analogy....

There are billions of cards in a genomic deck... and the genetic equivalent of a royal flush or royal strait is not just any random series of "5" entries... in the case of genes try a value greater than hundreds, or thousands of codons...

We've played this numbers game before... IIRC you needed an infinite number of universes to pull your odds off...

[Phenomanul]

That is actually a distortion about what the modern understanding of mutation is.

Mutation is not strictly a degenerative process.

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this, as I understand it, or you simply don't seem to understand the processes of mutation. I can't figure out which it is.

I think that the distortion is being grossly purported by those on your side of the fence.

There are multiple genetic recombination methods that work with pre-existing genetic "information". Those processes lead to morphological changes too, and are far more effective. Not only are they more efficient; but we can readily see them in nature, today, without the need for hundreds of thousands of years - see canine history (for example).

Evolution portends to create new, beneficial, genetic information one base pair at a time. In other words, evolution can only create new genetic material from point mutations and from translation errors. The key here is that the information isn't new if it's already in the genome.

So if most point mutations are deleterious, and a coupling of multiple mutations are required to change a gene. How then does a process progress one point mutation at a time to the tune of several gene changes? The mathematical premise for evolution is flawed in this sense... one needs trillions upon trillions of years and billions upon billions of generational gene transmissions to pull off a successful gene change via this process, let alone change the quan y of base pairs that differentiate one genus from another (in the tens of millions as well )... Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...

Whatever floats peoples boats I guess...

[Blake]

Nobody has answered my question yet, or I missed the response.

Did God evolve or was she created?

I'm betting you never went to or paid attention in Sunday School

[Wild Cobra]

I'm betting you never went to or paid attention in Sunday School

Ha ha...

Do those answeres sit right with you?

[ElNono]

Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...

You could have started here and saved us a bunch of pages rehashing the same old stuff...

[Wild Cobra]

Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...

You could have started here and saved us a bunch of pages rehashing the same old stuff...

I agree with both of you.

Although I agree evolution does occur, I think what we have on earth had a great deal of help through genetic engineering.

How long ago do you think God evolved?

[ElNono]

How long ago do you think God evolved?

I would have to believe in god to answer that question, and I do not. So I'll pass.

[Phenomanul]

You could have started here and saved us a bunch of pages rehashing the same old stuff...

If you actually bothered to read the posts instead of dismissively "rolling" your eyes at them then you would know why I object to the pre-mature, and often incomplete, conclusions drawn from several of the studies coming out of the scientific community today...

My objections are legitimate... based on mathematical probability models that don't support the rise of DNA through naturalistic means, or the betterment of genetic code through non-deleterious mutagenic propagation, or for that matter the notion that the cosmological constants which allow the existence of life were somehow set at random (especially when several of them stand on razor's-edge sensitivities). And I can readily admit that there are times when no one has the answers... Furthermore, if you had paid attention, I'm not opposed to the existence of evolutionary processes; I'm opposed to the notion that they could progress without elements of design and purpose.

And contrary to prevalent accusations coming from those in your camp... Christians don't oppose science...

Science that researches our genome in the search for cures of genetic disease.

Science that provides more efficient energy solutions.

Science that seeks to understand cosmic processes.

Science that seeks to understand the sub-atomic world.

Science that seeks to create better materials for novel practical uses.

Science that helps us understand the biological functionality of the systems in our body/organisms, and the biochemical processes that govern them.

Science that helps us understand earth's many ecosystems.

Science that helps us understand the processes that govern earth's climate to prevent the loss of human life.

etc....

I do however, oppose Science that oversteps the bounds of the scientific method by purporting to state exactly what happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago.

On that note... I notice that you all constantly deride my viewpoint simply because you all feel that my belief in GOD 'blinds' my position from ever 'seeing your data objectively'. I can turn that right around and point out that your disbelief in GOD sets the basis for most of your assumptions, because if data for a study ever suggested that elements of design were present you all simply ignore it or throw it out altogether - seeking instead an answer devoid of a Creator - even it that leads you all down the wrong path.

And then to top it off, you all act as if Science is incapable of being driven by agendas in the first place... the indignation of such a notion is apalling to the core.

But then what are we to make of all the bad science that comes from groups trying to prove the existence of anthropomorphic climate change??? Yeah we need to develop more efficient energy solutions... yeah we need to be good environmental stewards... yeah we need to conserve our natural resources... yeah we need to protect earth's biological diversity... but our governments shouldn't try to push bad science down our throats in the name of the latest gerimandering tactic... If one doesn't support their position, they kill your funding. Science simply isn't as pure as you all make it out to be...

And ElNono, don't even bother slicing and dicing my post... "it's just a rehashing the same old stuff"... besides, you and I never get anywhere... you're still a bonafide athiest, and I'm still a full-fledged believer in a personal Creator.

[ElNono]

And ElNono, don't even bother slicing and dicing my post... "it's just a rehashing the same old stuff"... besides, you and I never get anywhere... you're still a bonafide athiest, and I'm still a full-fledged believer in a personal Creator.

True. However, you got your turn to post you crap, now I get my turn to post mine.

I never said that Science is not agenda driven. I don't think it's agenda driven in ALL cir stances, but of course there's agenda driven science.

At the very end, however, wether it's agenda driven or not, it's truly irrelevant. What's pure is not the science, but the method. Sooner or later, your claims are going to have to be tested and they're either going to be verified or not. And based on that, your hypothesis is going to be confirmed, modified or flat out rejected.
And because of that, we're going to learn something and keep on increasing our collective knowledge.

What's wrong is to dictate policy on unverified scientific theories. I don't think you have to believe in god to reach that conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

How did I know someone would piggy back off of the Internet Rules thread to 'boost' their pro-evolution worldview back in this thread... you all are like clock work (I guess I am too by responding). Is pasting this link your way of suggesting you've won the argument? Ironic... no?

The thrust of my post was that it was lame and childish to claim "victory" in something like this, not to necessarily boost my case per se.

I think that providing a concrete example of observed evolution is perfectly within bounds though.

[Höfner]

WGAF? We're born to die. Whatever's on the other side can wait til then.

[RandomGuy]

I think that the distortion is being grossly purported by those on your side of the fence.

There are multiple genetic recombination methods that work with pre-existing genetic "information". Those processes lead to morphological changes too, and are far more effective. Not only are they more efficient; but we can readily see them in nature, today, without the need for hundreds of thousands of years - see canine history (for example).

Evolution portends to create new, beneficial, genetic information one base pair at a time. In other words, evolution can only create new genetic material from point mutations and from translation errors. The key here is that the information isn't new if it's already in the genome.

So if most point mutations are deleterious, and a coupling of multiple mutations are required to change a gene. How then does a process progress one point mutation at a time to the tune of several gene changes? The mathematical premise for evolution is flawed in this sense... one needs trillions upon trillions of years and billions upon billions of generational gene transmissions to pull off a successful gene change via this process, let alone change the quan y of base pairs that differentiate one genus from another (in the tens of millions as well )... Frankly, I don't know how a 4.6 billion year-old model of earth provides enough time for this process to create the large volumes of genetic wealth we see today...

Whatever floats peoples boats I guess...

New information can be added by the duplication of gene sequences, or my retroviral insertion into the genome. We have concrete examples of each, and this becomes more readily apparent as we sequence more genomes.

This tends to debunk the claim that no new material can be added by the process of mutation.

BUT

Modern understanding of mutations is that, by and large, most mutations are very small and only end up effecting the expression of one gene. It has been shown that a majority of such mutations in mice tend to have little effect, but if the right gene is switched on/off at a critical time in the development of the embryo, or a certain protein is made in slightly larger proportions, this can have rather dramatic affects.

Your underlying assumption, and the one you continually refuse to question is that such changes are so remote as to be virtually impossible.

The data we have regarding rates of mutation shows mutations to be fairly common events, making this a faulty assumption.

If mutation rates are higher than you obviously assume, then is it fully within the realm of possibility that 4.6Bn years is quite enough time for such a process to create the “large volumes of genetic wealth”?

[RandomGuy]

I do however, oppose Science that oversteps the bounds of the scientific method by purporting to state exactly what happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago.

So red shift in astrophysics is out?

We aren't really taking radio telescopic pictures of the very distant past?

So evidence that shows that, as we progress back in time in the geologic record organisms tends to get simpler is out?

How old do you think the universe is?