crazy-tiger Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 crazy-tiger, I keep running out of time and energy and have been rude in not responding to you. My apologies. I will do so later. 105215[/snapback] You've been rude when you've responded to me... Should I expect a rude response from you later, or are you going to respond without the rudeness that permiates your posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 crazy-tiger, First, a reiteration of my apology. I am sincere about that. I took exception to your first response to me as I believed it was unreasonably accusatory. I don’t think that using quotes is any kind of mining unless they are deliberately taken out of context, which I don’t do. And if you have not noticed, I seldom default to things from creationists websites. I prefer to use neutral and/or secular references. Understand this, and that I consciously try to be fair and honest and we will get along just fine. “First, I'm waiting for you to show me how odds of 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000 in favour of mutations would result in mutations being a "rare" occurance...” In my second post I provided three pieces with links, each of which stated in point-blank terms, that mutations are rare occurrences. I still think this is the case, but you have made a fair point about context, which I acknowledge. “Second, all I'm talking about is the NUMBER of mutations…” I agree with you on this point. The point about mutations I want to make is about how little impact they have and how this should be disturbing to adherents of evolutionary theory. The more mutation has been discussed, the more unreliable it looks as the supposed engine of upward development and speciation. “If life is too complex to just evolve, if it's complexity demands that something of complexity had a hand in it, then whatever had a hand in it must ALSO be complex and must ALSO require that something complex have a hand in it's development, which would then also require something complex, which would also require something complex... and so on…” This has become a popular diversionary line of reasoning among secularists. This idea is based on a notion, and only a notion, that there is no possibility for ultimate intellect. I am simply not buying this. ----------------------- Zach, “Why do you think the incidence of mutations is detrimental to evolutionary theory?” I will answer with the following excerpt from a Talk.Origins article wherein the writer summarizes how Bombardier beetles might have developed. (These are interesting creatures regardless of who is writing about them). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html “...a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod. 1.Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987] 2.Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970]) 3.Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed. 4.The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237]) 5.A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis. 6.In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone. 7.Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior. 8.The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970] 9.Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed. 10.Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense. 11.Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location. 12.More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000] 13.The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction. 14.Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles. 15.The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.” Do you see what is wrong, and I mean grotesquely wrong, with this outline? This is not how evolution works, regardless of what this guy might “envision”. When it comes time to produce contrivances like this, evolutionary apologists totally lose touch with the fact that accidental copy errors called mutations have to produce every single detail in getting Mr. primitive arthropod configured into an amazingly specialized bombardier beetle. Small invaginations do not just develop. Invaginations do not just deepen and become reservoirs. Muscles do not just move around slightly. Different defensive chemicals besides quinines do no just appear and they don’t just morph into hydroquinones. Cells that secrete this stuff do not just develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir. Channels between cells do not just happen. Channels do not become specialized ducts. Secretory cells do not just withdraw from the reservoir surface and do not just become separate organs. Muscles do not just adapt into valves. Hydrogen peroxide does not just show up all ready to react. Cells secreting catalases and peroxidases do not just appear along passages outside valves which also do not just appear. Chemicals, regardless of their commonality, do not just somehow become concentrated in one location. Increased chemical production and enhanced expulsion mechanisms do not just happen. Passage walls do not just become firmer and become heat resistant and pressure retaining. “Still more” chemical production rates don’t just happen. Walls do not just toughen and shape into reaction chambers. Abdomen tips do not just become somewhat elongated and more flexible. Every single detail this writer sees as just “appearing” or “becoming” has to be accomplished by purposeless, random mutations and can only be accomplished by such mutations. Further, these improvements have to be considered in the light of mutations being: 1)relatively uncommon events 2)inconsequentially neutral about 99% of the time 3)usually harmful in the remaining 1% 4)only marginally beneficial if they are at all It is a sad commentary that any of this has to be pointed out. This is beyond ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny1 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 AAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH. Let's go back. Let's go back, everyone. txviper, you are playing fast and free with the numbers, as is everyone here. When you cross the laws of mathematics, you get on my bad side. Let's review: Mr. Neil, “Why should we care about the relativity of 120 mutations to 6 billion?” Perhaps we should not. I guess it depends on whether or not your world-view is dependent on mutations to account for the state of affairs on this planet. Mine is not. Apparently, you are dependant on airing your views here, so your worldview, such as it is, should be amenable to reason. “I showed you that it does happen quite frequently.” Your “show” still happens on the short side of a 1 to 50 million ratio. ------------ [4] The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. The average rate of point mutations is about 20-30 in a billion per individual. Almost all point mutations in multi-cellular What the HECK are you quoting from? A junk science site? Per individual what? Per individual nucleotide, that's what. I wouldn't exactly refer to a base pair as an "individual", just for starters. Your source makes it sound like a small person, rather than a chemical. organisms are strictly neutral. In human beings 90-97% of the DNA is "junk DNA" that does nothing (as best as can be determined.) One third of the changes to codons Ahem. I find this statement implausible! Such a great variation in the viability of DNA in human beings is extremely unlikely, considering the fact that modern humans are so genetically similar that we share approximately 99.9997% of our DNA in common. Is that a good enough explanation for you? read it again. And again. You are my CLONE. Get it? And so is the guy next to you. And the woman, too. And the next, and the next..... A variation of 7% is HUGE compared to a difference of 3/10,000, because that is all the variation that exists between us. remarkably significant, isn't it? 7% divided by .0003% = 1 in 3,333 (A ratio: ever heard of it?) I'm not going to say this again: the inactive portion of human DNA is 91%. Can we at least agree on that as a constant? Thank you. And, if not, I might actually grow gills, like Aquman. Come to think of it, I have a lot of DNA I might reactivate to gain special abilities. I have all sorts of special abilities I never knew about. (sections of DNA that code for proteins) are silent; that is, the DNA changes, but the the amino acid coded for remains the same. Thus 93-98% of all point mutations in humans are strictly neutral. Of the remaining 2-7% almost all of them are also neutral. A typical protein is a sequence of about 1,000 amino acids which folds up around a reaction site consisting of about 50 amino acids. Changes in the reaction site have a strong effect on the properties of the protein; changes elsewhere often do not unless they affect the folding pattern. As a result, less than 1% of the point mutations are subject to selection.” Less than 1%, or thereabouts.... them thar nucleotides.... er.... For the sake of argument, let's say 1/2 of 1%. Can you agree to that? [9] If we use the numbers in appendix I the effective genome size (for humans) is about 80,000,000 base pairs and the average number of point mutations in the effective genome is about 4. Wow. That's a lot. especially considering that human DNA is SELF-CORRECTING (more on that later) This works out that each base pair in the effective genome (ed. italics mine) will mutate about once in every 20,000,000 individuals. Wow. Each and every single possible combination of mutation occurs in one out of every 20 million live births? Kewl! Does this mean that I can give birth to a blowfish? [fixed typo -Z] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny1 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 This means that in species with large populations such as human beings (currently) every relevant point mutation appears in the species. No, it means there's an awful lot of miscarriages. (Spontaneous abortions) It's perfectly natural, but understandably upsetting to young or inexperienced parents. On the other hand, given a small group such as a hunter/gatherer tribe, a given mutation probably will not appear in the tribe. Now we're getting somewhere. That is where you are wrong, so wrong. 1 in 20 million is NOT the probability of a significant mutation occuring. 1 in 20 million is the probability of EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE MUTATION OCCURING AT ONCE!!!! hahahaha Does anyone have a good graphic of a smiley growing a hand out of the top of it's head? Or maybe a "Beware, stupid people are breeding" pic? Thanks! By your own account, each and every cell has 120 mutations. Let's multiply 120 times 1/2 of 1%, shall we? Pretty please? 120 X 0.005 = 0.6 1 / 0.6 = 1.6 So, if you love ratios (don't we all?) 1 in every one and a half kids (approximately) will have a significant mutation, for better or for worse. Think your small tribe can handle that? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html# Mutations, like it or not, are still rare events. More importantly, they are overwhelmingly inconsequential events. This is why it is hard to make a plausible case for random mutation being the mechanism which “drives evolution”. Now, are you the half a kid who had a significant mutation, or aren't you? Depends on whether it was beneficial or not..... “For those of us who can read scientific papers without creation-colored spectacles, there is little dispute.” More accurately, there is no desire or inclination to dispute. Once again, evolution is solely reliant on random mutations to account for millions of living and extinct plant and animal species. From any standpoint regarding statistics and probabilities, this is an absurd thing to believe. Is that so? <gleam> Well, tell that to the half a kid who got the non-beneficial mutation! More importantly, this brings us back to other plant and animal species, as opposed to humans. Humans have self-correcting DNA, a wonderful product of evolution in progress. And a might fine job it does of correcting damaged DNA. Presuming Abiogenesis (living cells arising from primordial soup) there was no such thing as self-correcting DNA, or even DNA, for that matter. We had RNA. In that case, mutations were much more frequent, since there was no self-regulating mechanism to correct it. Also, the planet at that time was less suitable for life (heat, pressure, mutagenic substances, strong solar radiation.) In that case, mutations weren't rare by any perspective. Instead of one in 50 million, it was more like one in a hundred...... .....Until living things evolved sufficiently that they had self-correcting DNA, which made more complex lifeforms such as ourselves possible. Answer for yourself these basic questions: (yes, I'm giving you homework): 1. How many base pairs of RNA are contained in a simple prokaryotic cell? (Hint: much fewer than a human being) 2. Given the new number of base pairs, and the rate of one in a hundred mutations, how many mutations occured per each new cell? (Yes, there would be more than one per cell (exasperated) 3. How many offspring can a single prokaryotic cell produce in a single hour? 4. How many hours are there in 4 BILLION years? 5. Does a single celled oragnism contain organs? (Organelles don't count, people!) 6. What are human organs composed of? (Think: billions and billions of CELLS!) 7. Out of those billions of cells, how many get passed to the next generation? (Think: 1/2 of one!) These are just a few of the ATROCITIES inflicted upon my dear science of Biology in this forum. (Somebody please comfort me now) “Only because you don't understand the science of genetics.” This has nothing to do with understanding genetics. This is about the likely vs. the preposterous. “Finding evidence of beneficial mutations is tricky business, because the beneficial mutations are out-numbered by the neutral.” Tricky indeed. Futile would be a better description. All that hard work for nothing? <grrrrrrrr> We're trying to cure diseases here, people! Ooo, you make me so mad! “you're not exactly in the position to make claims about how scientists do their work.” Scientists doing their work involves empirical evidence and repeatable experiments. Wow, you actually understand that. Too bad you aren't so ignorant, you might have made a fine scientist. I'm not even going to get into your debate about Dawkins. That is a purely emotional argument, not a rational one. I care nothing for the quirks of antisocial people. (Yawn) It really doesn't interest me at all. [moved from above post to enable quote boxes. -Z] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Hey could one of the mods move the second half of Penny's first post into her second so that the quotes work? I would have asked Penny to do it, but if I remember correctly, there's a time limit for post edits on non-subscribers. Not to be nasty or anything. I'm actually interested in what Penny has to say, but I'm having difficulty following her post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny1 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Hey could one of the mods move the second half of Penny's first post into her second so that the quotes work? I would have asked Penny to do it, but if I remember correctly, there's a time limit for post edits on non-subscribers. Not to be nasty or anything. I'm actually interested in what Penny has to say, but I'm having difficulty following her post. 105767[/snapback] Thanks, Mr. Neil. I actually don't see an edit button on my post, and the quote function isn't working <stumped> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 crazy-tiger, First, a reiteration of my apology. I am sincere about that. I took exception to your first response to me as I believed it was unreasonably accusatory. I don’t think that using quotes is any kind of mining unless they are deliberately taken out of context, which I don’t do. And if you have not noticed, I seldom default to things from creationists websites. I prefer to use neutral and/or secular references. Understand this, and that I consciously try to be fair and honest and we will get along just fine. Quote-mining is when a quote is removed from the full context/meaning that it was a part of and produced as the full context, resulting in it now meaning something that it didn't... It makes no real difference if it was done by accident or on purpose, it is still quote-mining. If it was accidental, fine... just be more careful in the future. “First, I'm waiting for you to show me how odds of 432,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000 in favour of mutations would result in mutations being a "rare" occurance...” In my second post I provided three pieces with links, each of which stated in point-blank terms, that mutations are rare occurrences. I still think this is the case, but you have made a fair point about context, which I acknowledge. “Second, all I'm talking about is the NUMBER of mutations…” I agree with you on this point. The point about mutations I want to make is about how little impact they have and how this should be disturbing to adherents of evolutionary theory. The more mutation has been discussed, the more unreliable it looks as the supposed engine of upward development and speciation. “If life is too complex to just evolve, if it's complexity demands that something of complexity had a hand in it, then whatever had a hand in it must ALSO be complex and must ALSO require that something complex have a hand in it's development, which would then also require something complex, which would also require something complex... and so on…” This has become a popular diversionary line of reasoning among secularists. This idea is based on a notion, and only a notion, that there is no possibility for ultimate intellect. I am simply not buying this. It's simple logic... the assumption being that complexity needs help to get started. That assumption is the core of the whole ID/IC idea, that life is too complex to get going on it's own. Of course, we have to wonder what this ultimate intellect you speak of would be like... would it happen it be complex? Why, yes it would. Would it happen to be so incredibly complex that it would make life seem rediculously simple? Why, yes it would. So, the assumption is now "something that is complex needs help to get it started, but the complexity that we propose helped it didn't need help to get started" It's an assumption that refutes itself, rendering the entire argument false... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 txviper- Let's go back to the central mechanism- genetic variation. You don't seem to have any objection to the concept of genetic influence on phenotype, is that correct? Let's use a hypothetical gene chs, which codes for an enzyme called Chemical Synthase. This enzyme produces a chemical called Chemical. Now, genes are typically regulated by upstream sequences called "promoters." These promoter regions can regulate how often and how much a particular gene is transcribed. In our hypothetical gene, a mutation occurs in the promoter region, causing a 50% increase in the frequency of gene transcription of chs. As it happens, chs is not post-transcriptionally regulated, so an increase in the amount of RNA transcript directly results in an increase in the amount of enzyme produced. Let's say that the substrate for this enzyme Chemical Synthase is plentiful, and does not restrict the Vmax of enzymatic activity. Thus, more enzyme available results in more Chemical available. In this way, a single mutation has affected a particular phenotype, in this case the production of a particular chemical. All phenotypes are controlled by genes, from the production of chemicals to the size and shape of organs. If a phenotype is selected for by natural selection, then the frequency of the allele that caused it is increased in the population. You say that: "Every single detail this writer sees as just “appearing” or “becoming” has to be accomplished by purposeless, random mutations and can only be accomplished by such mutations." That's exactly right, and each one follows the same basic outline that I've given above. You say that the mutations which cause phenotype changes are uncommon, mostly neutral, and only a few having any impact, those being often harmful, and only sometimes beneficial, and that marginally. That's mostly true- I wouldn't marginalize any effect, though. Any mutation which increases fitness will be selected for, even if it's a small increase in fitness. Spend some more time at talkorigins- it'll do you good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Thanks, Mr. Neil. I actually don't see an edit button on my post, and the quote function isn't working <stumped>No, what happened was that you're only allowed to use ten quotes per post. It's okay though. Zach fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted November 12, 2005 Author Share Posted November 12, 2005 Viper, please use quotes. Your posts are difficult to read. “You've admitted that there DO exist beneficial mutations, though they are rare” I will concede that there are mutations which can produce what might be called lateral benefits. Sickle cell anemia for instance, apparently provides improved resistance to malaria. However, it is still harmful, sometimes fatal, for most people who have it. And you blatantly ignore genes that are highly beneficial with minimal side effects. For example, the german boy born a few years ago possessed a mutation that increased his muscle mass tremendously. Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/ “One should note, however, that according to Thomas Malthus, there is a certain struggle for existence.” I hate to stray off the topic, but Mr. Malthus did have an interesting point of view about some issues. For instance, from one of his essays: These quotes seem to be red herrings. They have no real bearing on evolutionary biology. This is the general expectation. But this is still an unsubstantiated declaration. Where is the documentation of the mutations that improved Bob or anyone else? I will concede that this might be a reasonable hypotheses, but without empirical evidence, these things are only speculation. But there IS evidence. When we discover a bacterium has evolved resistance to a gene, we can break down its mutant genome and compare it to the wild-type bacteria genome to see that a mutation exists. We can replicate the mutant gene and insert it into other bacteria to see if they become resistant in order to test our hypothesis. Heck, we can do the same thing for macroscopic animals such as humans. The only difficulty is in finding mutant genes due to their rarity for a species that doesn't reproduce nearly as much as bacteria. So what EXACTLY do you mean that this claim is "unsubstantiated?" I've pointed out that: 1) Beneficial mutations DO exist (see the news article) 2) Beneficial mutations will be preferentially selected because they make the organism healthier in some manner. (we have performed such experiments with bacteria, insects, plants, and animals. It is the very basis of genetic engineering) 3) As such, the population will change and evolve over time. What is so inconcievable about that? Natural selection not only simply makes sense, but it has been substantiated over 140 years of experimentation and observation. Imagine a guy who walks into a ballistics lab and says "I don't see how you can believe this crazy stuff about momentum and kinetic energy. Sure, all the math works out and seems reasonable, but it's totally unsubstantiated." The same goes for you, Viper. You either have a very odd and esoteric understanding of what evidence means or you are vacuously denying something that has been quite obvious for many generations of scientists. Further, your very-developed progression (my compliments) consider only what evolution recognizes as very late hominids and does not take into account anomalous things like Neanderthal, who had a brain case larger than ours, but was supposedly lost to extinction (which I do not buy). I have no idea what you mean here. You should note that larger brains do not equate to higher intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted November 12, 2005 Author Share Posted November 12, 2005 You seem to not understand that natural selection is what defeats your ratio argument. Are you now going to imply that beneficial mutations don't happen at all? Or are you going to quibble over "lateral benefits"? I can't wait until Spooky sees that one. WOW. Sweet Vishnu, open a biology textbook, man! BTW, Neil: I see you haven't responded to my post here yet: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4750 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 I'll read it in a little while. Thanks for reminding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Mr. Neil, “You seem to not understand that natural selection is what defeats your ratio argument” My argument is about evolution’s dependency on mutations and whether or not the claims are realistic. ---------------------------- Penny1, I’m not sure what to make of your post. I’ve been trying to make the point that mutations have only a mild, nearly undetectable, impact on living organisms. “Presuming Abiogenesis (living cells arising from primordial soup)” I do not presume this for several reasons. “there was no such thing as self-correcting DNA, or even DNA, for that matter.” But we are to accept that the phenomenal complexity of DNA and the remarkable self-correcting characteristics happened by was of mutations? DNA molecules are where mutations occur, are they not? What accidental, random process was involved in getting the p-soup components all the way up to DNA (or RNA is you accept the idea of an antecedent “RNA world”)? “We had RNA. In that case, mutations were much more frequent, since there was no self-regulating mechanism to correct it.” Is this not total conjecture? “Also, the planet at that time was less suitable for life (heat, pressure, mutagenic substances, strong solar radiation.)” And the evidence of this is? “In that case, mutations weren't rare by any perspective. Instead of one in 50 million, it was more like one in a hundred......” And the documentation for this is? “.....Until living things evolved sufficiently that they had self-correcting DNA, which made more complex lifeforms such as ourselves possible” Okay, time out. Things do not just “evolve sufficiently”. They supposedly change by way of mutation. That is the only mechanism for development and speciation. You are way out on a limb here. This is exactly what they guy in my prior post did in his step-by-step outline of how “primitive” arthropods can become specialized ones, except what you have done is worse. He only had preposterous faith in the efficacy of mutations. You have made incomprehensible strides from chemicals all the way to something as hyper-complex as self-repairing DNA molecules and provided nothing in the way of evidence to show that this is possible. Since you are only trying to get us up to reproducing prokaryotic cells, and you apparently trust that this can happen by chance and with no coercion, I am confident that you can produce lab experiments that validate this series of events. You will have the advantage of the intellect and effort of evolutionary researchers, and all of the controlled conditions and materials available to them. No randomness or chance involved. It should be a piece of cake. You complete your assignment and I’ll start on my homework. “ “Scientists doing their work involves empirical evidence and repeatable experiments.” Wow, you actually understand that.” Yes, I believe that I do. “Too bad you aren't so ignorant, you might have made a fine scientist.” Did you mean “too bad you are so ignorant”? I would have made a lousy scientist. It’s that evidence thing. People really get put out with you if you really expect to see it. “I'm not even going to get into your debate about Dawkins.” I don’t blame you and there is no need for it. All that needs to happen is to be willing to do what he would not. Provide the evidence or admit that there isn’t any. Shine or whine. --------------------------- crazy-tiger, “It's simple logic... the assumption being that complexity needs help to get started. That assumption is the core of the whole ID/IC idea, that life is too complex to get going on it's own.” Okay. So it’s very simple. No help required. Duplicate it. ----------------------------- Zach, “Let's go back to the central mechanism- genetic variation.” Well, no. Let’s try and substantiate the devices which account for the variations. “You don't seem to have any objection to the concept of genetic influence on phenotype, is that correct?” I can’t object to any concept which can be validated with evidence. ”Let's use a hypothetical gene chs, which codes for an enzyme called Chemical Synthase. This enzyme produces a chemical called Chemical. Now, genes are typically regulated by upstream sequences called "promoters." These promoter regions can regulate how often and how much a particular gene is transcribed. In our hypothetical gene, a mutation occurs in the promoter region, causing a 50% increase in the frequency of gene transcription of chs. As it happens, chs is not post-transcriptionally regulated, so an increase in the amount of RNA transcript directly results in an increase in the amount of enzyme produced. Let's say that the substrate for this enzyme Chemical Synthase is plentiful, and does not restrict the Vmax of enzymatic activity. Thus, more enzyme available results in more Chemical available. In this way, a single mutation has affected a particular phenotype, in this case the production of a particular chemical.” All phenotypes are controlled by genes, from the production of chemicals to the size and shape of organs. If a phenotype is selected for by natural selection, then the frequency of the allele that caused it is increased in the population.” Zach! Whoah!! Move the hypothetical point back a couple of light years. What needs to be addressed, is where and how all these things developed. I appreciate your expertise, but there is an enormous difference between a person who can use every feature of a sophisticated video camera and a person who can conceive, design and build one. ”You say that: "Every single detail this writer sees as just “appearing” or “becoming” has to be accomplished by purposeless, random mutations and can only be accomplished by such mutations." That's exactly right, and each one follows the same basic outline that I've given above.” Come now Zach. Your basic outline is about definition, parameters and precise rules. Purposeless and random are not compatible concepts here. You are trying to equate explicit and nebulous. ”You say that the mutations which cause phenotype changes are uncommon, mostly neutral, and only a few having any impact, those being often harmful, and only sometimes beneficial, and that marginally. That's mostly true- I wouldn't marginalize any effect, though. Any mutation which increases fitness will be selected for, even if it's a small increase in fitness.” I understand that this is classic evolutionary thinking. And that is the problem. It is only thinking. It is very hopeful speculation. If “that’s mostly true”, then only a teaspoon out of a truckload of mutations have even diminutive effect. The issue is one of plausibility. ”Spend some more time at talkorigins- it'll do you good.” I’ve spent lots of time there. I watch for buzzwords, glossovers and breaches in rational thinking, which are all more than abundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 “You seem to not understand that natural selection is what defeats your ratio argument” My argument is about evolution’s dependency on mutations and whether or not the claims are realistic. Yeah. And explain again how you're determining that it's not realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny1 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Mr. Neil, Penny1, I’m not sure what to make of your post. I’ve been trying to make the point that mutations have only a mild, nearly undetectable, impact on living organisms. Of course you don't know what to make of my post. You haven't the IQ. It depends on the organism, too, and the total number of genes expressed, which varies widely from species to species. "Living organisms" is an unjustifiable blanket statement. “Presuming Abiogenesis (living cells arising from primordial soup)” I do not presume this for several reasons. Which is why you are not a scientist. A scientist does not snap his mind shut like an unread book, because he has already reached his own conclusions on a matter. A scientist proposes hypotheses, reviews hypotheses of his peers, he analyses, tests and retests. A good scientist says, "What if", keeps an open mind, and considers all possibilities before reaching a conclusion. It seems you know less about science than you pretend to. BTW, there you go again, taking words out of context. Doing that is the equivalent of intellectual dishonesty. You just jumped all over this statement of a well-known hypothesis, which I mentioned in passing, and pretend that is all you need to know in reference to what I am saying. “there was no such thing as self-correcting DNA, or even DNA, for that matter.” But we are to accept that the phenomenal complexity of DNA and the remarkable self-correcting characteristics happened by was of mutations? DNA molecules are where mutations occur, are they not? What accidental, random process was involved in getting the p-soup components all the way up to DNA (or RNA is you accept the idea of an antecedent “RNA world”)? “We had RNA. In that case, mutations were much more frequent, since there was no self-regulating mechanism to correct it.” Is this not total conjecture? Have you ever picked up a biology book in your life, as Mr. Spooky said before? You don't know a damn thing about Biology. I'm not about do your work for you. Go look it up yourself, dammit. There is an intimate relationship between DNA and RNA. RNA is assembled from DNA in DNA based lifeforms. RNA forms the blueprint for proteins. RNA also replicates itself from other RNA. It is not total conjecture, it is simply biological fact. It is a fact that prokaryotes contain RNA and not DNA, and it is a fact that these were the only lifeforms for 2 billion years. These organisms are abundant today, so we are able to examine them closely. Go smoke your hookah. “.....Until living things evolved sufficiently that they had self-correcting DNA, which made more complex lifeforms such as ourselves possible” Okay, time out. Things do not just “evolve sufficiently”. They supposedly change by way of mutation. That is the only mechanism for development and speciation. You are way out on a limb here. This is exactly what they guy in my prior post did in his step-by-step outline of how “primitive” arthropods can become specialized ones, except what you have done is worse. He only had preposterous faith in the efficacy of mutations. You have made incomprehensible strides from chemicals all the way to something as hyper-complex as self-repairing DNA molecules and provided nothing in the way of evidence to show that this is possible. Since you are only trying to get us up to reproducing prokaryotic cells, and you apparently trust that this can happen by chance and with no coercion, I am confident that you can produce lab experiments that validate this series of events. You will have the advantage of the intellect and effort of evolutionary researchers, and all of the controlled conditions and materials available to them. No randomness or chance involved. It should be a piece of cake. You complete your assignment and I’ll start on my homework. No. You do your homework, and then you can speak intelligently about Biology with the rest of us. I'm not here to waste my time giving a hopeless flunkie a college education. And yes, species do "evolve sufficiently," and no, mutation is not the "only mechanism" as you put it. There is mutation AND adaptation, competition for natural resources, predation, environmental conditions, and survival of the fittest. This is natural selection, which you totally ignore. Self-repairing DNA molecules are a chemical. (doh!) How ridiculous can you be? I don’t blame you and there is no need for it. All that needs to happen is to be willing to do what he would not. Provide the evidence or admit that there isn’t any. Shine or whine. I don't need to whine. You've done plenty enough whining for all the rest of us. Zach! Whoah!! Move the hypothetical point back a couple of light years. What needs to be addressed, is where and how all these things developed. I appreciate your expertise, but there is an enormous difference between a person who can use every feature of a sophisticated video camera and a person who can conceive, design and build one. ”You say that: "Every single detail this writer sees as just “appearing” or “becoming” has to be accomplished by purposeless, random mutations and can only be accomplished by such mutations." That's exactly right, and each one follows the same basic outline that I've given above.” Come now Zach. Your basic outline is about definition, parameters and precise rules. Purposeless and random are not compatible concepts here. You are trying to equate explicit and nebulous. A clear case of intellectual dishonesty. "Purposeless" and "random" applies to the emergence of mutations, not the concept. The concept is as clear and concise as can be. Do you have the IQ of a melon, or what? Let's see you conceive, design and build your own "sophisticated video camera", txviper, and then you can use the anology on poor Zack. I understand that this is classic evolutionary thinking. And that is the problem. It is only thinking. It is very hopeful speculation. If “that’s mostly true”, then only a teaspoon out of a truckload of mutations have even diminutive effect. The issue is one of plausibility. ”Spend some more time at talkorigins- it'll do you good.” I’ve spent lots of time there. I watch for buzzwords, glossovers and breaches in rational thinking, which are all more than abundant. If you only watch for buzzwords, glossovers and petty mistakes in spelling, then you asked for it. You are a very poor grammatician. I will make short work out of you. I and others have found numerous gaps in your logic, and you ignore them all. As for "hopeful speculation", what I gather is that you want scientists to reproduce life in the laboratory from lifeless matter. It ain't gonna happen, txviper. Can't do it. It took billions of years to do it. We can, and have, reproduced the basic building blocks of matter using experimentation. We've synthesized DNA and RNA (you can look it up yourself, lazy.) We can't reproduce life in the laboratory, as you will see in my next post. Just don't confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution. They are two separate theories, and it's obvious you can't tell the two apart. Evolution = changes over time effected by mutation, which enables diversification, reproduction, which enables many variations to arise, and selection, which weeds out the less fit forms, while the fitter forms proliferate. None of the above imply how the first living cell arose. All aspects of Evolution are clearly observable in our natural environment, in the fossil record, and have been reproduced in the laboratory. This is far more than wishful thinking. This is very well-established theory. A closed mind waits for answers from others, then refutes those answers without examination. That is exactly what you have done here, txviper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny1 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I've done my homework. Have you done yours? I understand that this is classic evolutionary thinking. And that is the problem. It is only thinking. It is very hopeful speculation. If “that’s mostly true”, then only a teaspoon out of a truckload of mutations have even diminutive effect. The issue is one of plausibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. We've had truckloads of mutations that have had a very profound effect on all aspects of life on Earth. Are you ready? WHY WE CAN'T REPRODUCE LIFE IN THE LAB It takes billions of years. If you'd bothered to do your homework, txviper, you'd know that. We can't have an open or honest discourse when you constantly take the offensive in a negative way, and refuse to objectively examine anything anyone has to say. Answers to the questions: 1. How many base pairs of RNA are contained in a simple prokaryotic cell? (Hint: much fewer than a human being) http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?q=prokaryote http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01....rokaryote&dpg=7 Prokaryotic Genomes There are two domains of prokaryotes: bacteria and archaea. Members of these groups do not have a cell nucleus or organelles bounded by membranes. Although there are exceptions, bacterial genomes do not typically have introns. On the other hand, the genes of organisms in the domain Archaea are sometimes a bit more complex and can have introns and other structural and regulatory elements similar to those found in eukaryotes. Prokaryotic genome sizes can vary widely. *Some may be as small as a few hundred thousand base pairs or as large as several million base pairs.* Typical proto-prokaryotic cell: 300,000 base pairs or so (RNA) This number, of course, varied widely over billions of years of evolution. The earliest cells probably had only a few thousand base pairs. Notice that none of these early cells possessed organelles lined with membranes. These simple organisms are still alive and thriving today. 2. Given the new number of base pairs, and the rate of one in a hundred mutations, how many mutations occured per each new cell? (Yes, there would be more than one per cell (exasperated) With early Earth conditions predisposing toward mutation (these conditions changed over time) and no way to correct transcription errors, approximately 3,000 new mutations would occur in the RNA sequence of each new cell. This placed the evolutionary curve steeply in favor of cells with neutral or beneficial mutations (in other words, many, many cells died shortly after replication) Of course, single-celled organisms can't help doing anything but reproduce. Evolution was actually very rapid in the early stages of life, although the right conditions for multi-cellular organisms did not arise until later. The "perfect cell" had to emerge first, or as close to perfectly fit for its environment as possible, and with so much evolutionary pressure brought to bear, emerge it did. 3. How many offspring can a single prokaryotic cell produce in a single hour? http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/celldivision/prokaryotes.html In a single day: 281,000,000,000,000 (281 Trillion) "Rate of multiplication in Bacteria. Bacteria can divide every twenty to thirty minutes. This gives bacteria remarkable powers of multiplication. Consider a single bacteria. After 24 hours there would be 2^48 or 2.81 x 10^14 bacteria. This is within the range of the number of eukaryotic cells in the human body." As many cells as a full-grown human being in one day? Fantastic. The same thing happens the next day: each single-celled organism that survives becomes a parent that produces 281 Trillion new babies on its own. So, day 2: Multiply 281 Trillion by 281 Trillion. Day 3: multiply the result by 281 Trillion. And so on.... 4. How many hours are there in 4 BILLION years? 35,064,960,000,000 There are 1,461,040,000,000 days in 4 billion years. Raise 281 Trillion to the 1.461 Trillionth Power. The resulting number is larger than a Googolplex, which in turn is larger than every single particle in the known Universe. In fact, the resulting number is larger than every single particle in a trillion Universes. Of course, Earth resources are finite. There has to be a limit to the number of bacteria that the biosphere can sustain. http://www.mbari.org/chemsensor/residencetime.html Volume of the Earth's oceans: 1.37x1021 L http://whyfiles.org/shorties/count_bact.html Interpreting the results on the above site, we can safely say that early Earth did not have a soil structure like it does today, nor did it have human life or multicellular beings. So, let's use the figure given for total prokaryotes living in aquatic environments as our base: 12 x 10^28 This number would have increased over geological time as the bacteria created a soil structure on the ocean floor, which would bring the total number of bacteria closer to the modern total of 5 x 10^30 Once this number has been reached, the total number of generations of bacteria is limited at any given time to this number. Since single-celled organisms are virtually immortal and do not self-destruct, as they do in more complex multi-cellular organisms (another example of selection at work: a multi-cellular organism with self- destructing cells is less likely to die of cancer), there is plenty of room for only the best of the best bacteria to survive, be they young or old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution Let's use the number of bacteria in the world's oceans alone, from 3.5 billion years ago when prokaryotes emerged on Earth, until the emergence of eukaryotes 2 billion years later: The generations of the bacteria are 48 generations per day. 730,520,000,000 days in 2 billion years Time to populate the world's oceans from a single prokaryote: 101 generations (a little over 2 days) "turnover" of new bacteria produced every day through cellular division: 5.76 X 10^30 (5.76 X 10^30) * (7.3 X 10^11) = 4.2 X 10^42 By comparison, 10 to the hundredth power is a googol. I'm not sure if you're aware of what a large number this is. It's simply huge. Bacteria are not human cells. They do not possess self-regulating DNA. But, with that many replications up to the emergence of nucleic cells, they could have if you like. Now, if you want to dispute 1 out of a hundred mutations in non-self correcting DNA, fine. Let's use the standard for significant mutations in human DNA, and apply it to bacteria (we shouldn't have to): 1/2 of 1% of 4.2 X 10^42 = 2.1 X 10^40 Still a huge number, and still comparable to a googol. If you take into account more frequent mutations due to environment, etc. we get: 3,000 * 4.2 X 10^42 = 1.26 X 10^46 So, you see, when you reach that point, the difference between 3,000 and 0.005 doesn't matter a wit. It all gets swallowed up in the vastness of the number of bacteria, and the vastness of geological time. Remember, by this time, too, a slime has formed on the ocean bottom over 2 billion years, which means there are vastly more bacteria living on the ocean floor than before. You would need a computer to model this, but I'll bet by this time it doesn't matter. Nearly a Googol worth of mutations have taken place, and a significant number of mutations have occured, to enable the emergence of multicellular life. 5. Does a single-celled organism contain organs? (Organelles don't count, people!) No, it doesn't. Organs themselves are composed of billions of cells. See, this sort of fundamentally flawed thinking shows enormous ignorance of biology. You're out of your league. 6. What are human organs composed of? (Think: billions and billions of CELLS!) 7. Out of those billions of cells, how many get passed to the next generation? (Think: 1/2 of one!) This is misleading, though, because gametes are not just any ordinary cells. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc225.htm#3.12.1 http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc225.htm#3.4.2 So, the female precursor cells (oocytes) are frozen in a state of arrested development, and do not replicate at all. The female has a limited number of egg cells per lifetime, and 4-5 of them are wasted each menstruation as "follicles" which go on to produce luteinizing hormone as part of the menstrual cycle. Spermatagonia, on the other hand, continue to divide by mitosis throughout life. Yet, the finished spermatazoa are extremely fragile cells, because they are so small. They are subject to genetic mutations and malformation due to heat, pressure, tight jeans, etc. This raises the risk of mutation. In the female, obviously, an immortal cell is a damaged one. Depending on the age of the mother, anywhere between 30-50% of the DNA in the original cells has been mutated. (Moreso in late-life mothers) This may be mother nature's little way of giving evolution in humans and other animals a boost, but it also raises the risk of miscarriages, fatal birth defects and unpleasantness for humans. There's far more likely to be mutations in gametes than in somatic cells. Therefore, saying there are "4" or even "120" mutations in your average reproductive cell is an inaccurate and misleading statement. One last article for you that may perk your interest: http://www.myhealthsense.com/F010703_biologicalClock.html Since you didn't bother to examine the answers to any of the questions, txviper, you get an F. F for Flunk. If your life depended on those answers, you'd be dead now. (Lucky for you that it doesn't!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 crazy-tiger, “It's simple logic... the assumption being that complexity needs help to get started. That assumption is the core of the whole ID/IC idea, that life is too complex to get going on it's own.” Okay. So it’s very simple. No help required. Duplicate it. 106062[/snapback] Duplicate what? Life? Well, of course it's life you want me to duplicate... but if I did that, I'd be doing it in such a way that confirms the IC/ID argument, so I won't. What I will do, is repeat something that you missed/ignored... Of course, we have to wonder what this ultimate intellect you speak of would be like... would it happen it be complex? Why, yes it would. Would it happen to be so incredibly complex that it would make life seem rediculously simple? Why, yes it would.So, the assumption is now "something that is complex needs help to get it started, but the complexity that we propose helped it didn't need help to get started" It's an assumption that refutes itself, rendering the entire argument false... Since you wouldn't/couldn't answer this point, I'll make it a question... Could something complex enough to design life have come about without the need for a designer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Now, CT. You know the answer to that question! God has always existed, so he doesn't need an origin. But, shh-sshhhh... Let him use that. Don't spoil it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Now, CT. You know the answer to that question! God has always existed, so he doesn't need an origin. But, shh-sshhhh... Let him use that. Don't spoil it. 106184[/snapback] Even if we mentioned it, he'd still use it... even after it's been shown to be irrational. We are all, except idiots like Richard Dawkins, hopefully trying to look as objectively as we can at the data and draw rational conclusions. 104591[/snapback] Obviously not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Penny1, “You haven't the IQ” Okay, your IQ soars and mine is unimpressive. Let’s let that be a given. “A scientist does not snap his mind shut like an unread book, because he has already reached his own conclusions on a matter. A scientist proposes hypotheses, reviews hypotheses of his peers, he analyses, tests and retests.” And who could disagree with this? “It seems you know less about science than you pretend to.” Well then, let’s also consider that I am ignorant as well as dull. We might as well get these things out of the way. Otherwise you’ll feel compelled to keep pointing them out. “BTW, there you go again, taking words out of context…..You just jumped all over this statement of a well-known hypothesis, which I mentioned in passing…..” Well Penny, I’m trying to avoid snapping my mind shut. I understand that a “primordial soup” is indeed part of a well-known hypothesis. But I’m not familiar with the “analyses, tests and retests” to do with it. Didn’t you say that hypotheses require this? “There is an intimate relationship between DNA and RNA. RNA is assembled from DNA in DNA based lifeforms. RNA forms the blueprint for proteins. RNA also replicates itself from other RNA. It is not total conjecture, it is simply biological fact.” But wait just a second. Earlier you said this: “…..there was no such thing as self-correcting DNA, or even DNA, for that matter. We had RNA. In that case, mutations were much more frequent, since there was no self-regulating mechanism to correct it….” So there was a time when there was only RNA. But now there is an intimate relationship between RNA and DNA, and RNA is assembled from DNA. Do you see the problem here? Can you provide the “tests and retests” data that shows the more primitive molecule mutating into the more advanced one? Can you provide the same for how RNA came about before there was even anything to mutate? “It is a fact that prokaryotes contain RNA and not DNA” You are wrong. Do I have to make sure that every little thing you say in passing is not erroneous? “and it is a fact that these were the only lifeforms for 2 billion years.” Well, since you have accepted this conclusion with a scientist’s mentality, I’m sure you understand why I would like to see the “analyses, tests and retests” which prove this. I'm particularly interested in how biologists date things like this. “These organisms are abundant today, so we are able to examine them closely.” Well, that brings up another question I’ll bring up ask after we get the mutations issue ironed out. “And yes, species do "evolve sufficiently," and no, mutation is not the "only mechanism" as you put it. There is mutation AND adaptation, competition for natural resources, predation, environmental conditions, and survival of the fittest. This is natural selection, which you totally ignore.” No, I didn’t ignore selective processes. They are just not involved yet. You have to account for the change before it can be selected or deselected. Mutation IS the only mechanism for change. And since mutations are about structural revisions in RNA or DNA molecules, you have a problem. You haven’t even accounted for proteins. Did they self-assemble? What is the process? “I and others have found numerous gaps in your logic, and you ignore them” And I detect logic problems as well. Here is one of yours: “you want scientists to reproduce life in the laboratory from lifeless matter. It ain't gonna happen, txviper. Can't do it. It took billions of years to do it”…………’It takes billions of years. If you'd bothered to do your homework, txviper, you'd know that.” No, it DID NOT take billions of years to do it. Prokaryotes have supposedly been around for billions of years, not forming themselves for that long. They "appear" in the pre-cam fossil record don't they? You believe in something that you have no basis for. “We can, and have, reproduced the basic building blocks of matter using experimentation” I assume you are talking about amino acids, as in the Miller experiment. This was hardly a breakthrough of any sort. “We've synthesized DNA and RNA” This is way overstated. I expect you know this is the case. “Just don't confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution. They are two separate theories, and it's obvious you can't tell the two apart.” I can, and I also understand why evolutionists demand this. In evolution, you at least have mutations to theorize with. It is still a chore, but then evolutionists have always had the advantage of talking about evidence but not producing any. (They can get by with this because their “peers” do it also). I guess that’s why I enjoy talking with them. They are people of astonishing faith, even it it’s misdirected. Can you describe just where you would draw the line between origins and evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 crazy-tiger, "Duplicate what? Life? Well, of course it's life you want me to duplicate... but if I did that, I'd be doing it in such a way that confirms the IC/ID argument, so I won't." ct, this is not a very strong comeback. If this were a debate in front of a live audience, their response would embarrass you. As to the Creator of the Creator of the Creator.....deal, I'll just be honest and say I don't have a good comeback for it. It's like the "could God create a rock so large that He could not lift it" idea. Things like this, in my mind, are somewhere in the interface between the finite and the infinite, and the comprehensible and the incomprehensible. I don't dwell on them. If you find arguments like this satisfying, then you have found answers that work for you. They just do not work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 crazy-tiger, "Duplicate what? Life? Well, of course it's life you want me to duplicate... but if I did that, I'd be doing it in such a way that confirms the IC/ID argument, so I won't." ct, this is not a very strong comeback. If this were a debate in front of a live audience, their response would embarrass you. It wouldn't, since it's pointing out the attempt to get me to disprove my own argument by taking what I said about the "endless creator" argument being simple logic, and using it in the context of it being simple to duplicate life... The only one who would be embarassed would be the one who used a quote-mining tactic AND GOT CAUGHT OUT DOING IT! As to the Creator of the Creator of the Creator.....deal, I'll just be honest and say I don't have a good comeback for it. It's like the "could God create a rock so large that He could not lift it" idea. Things like this, in my mind, are somewhere in the interface between the finite and the infinite, and the comprehensible and the incomprehensible. I don't dwell on them. If you find arguments like this satisfying, then you have found answers that work for you. They just do not work for me. 106415[/snapback] So, special pleading works for you? Sorry, but if you assume that something complex can't come about by itself, then you assume that NO complex thing can come about by itself... You shoot yourself in the foot and refute your own argument when you then turn around and say that there IS something complex that can come about by itself. (the whole "creator not needing a creator" idea) Answer the question... Could something complex enough to design life have come about without the need for a designer? For your enjoyment, and since you don't want to dwell on it, I'll give you the consequences of the answers... Yes, then not all complex things need to be designed and you refute your own argument. (which shows that it's an irrational argument) No, then the designer needs a designer and you run into a never-ending chain of designers. (which shows the irrationality of the argument.) THERE is your rational result of looking at the evidence objectively... IC/ID is an irrational argument. You wanted us to believe that you are looking at the evidence objectively and drawing a rational conclusion... you've shown now that you REFUSE to look at the evidence objectively and that you have already come to an irrational conclusion. And your excuse for this? You don't find those arguments or answers satisfying... It's a cop out, pure and simple... you don't like the answer, so you ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 As to the Creator of the Creator of the Creator.....deal, I'll just be honest and say I don't have a good comeback for it. It's like the "could God create a rock so large that He could not lift it" idea. Things like this, in my mind, are somewhere in the interface between the finite and the infinite, and the comprehensible and the incomprehensible. I don't dwell on them. If you find arguments like this satisfying, then you have found answers that work for you. They just do not work for me. So, special pleading works for you? I've got the antidote for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 MrSpooky, “the german boy born a few years ago possessed a mutation that increased his muscle mass tremendously” Whether or not this is a good thing remains to be seen: “The boy’s mutant DNA segment was found to block production of a protein called myostatin that limits muscle growth.” “The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems.” “But there IS evidence. When we discover a bacterium has evolved resistance to a gene, we can break down its mutant genome and compare it to the wild-type bacteria genome to see that a mutation exists. We can replicate the mutant gene and insert it into other bacteria to see if they become resistant in order to test our hypothesis. Heck, we can do the same thing for macroscopic animals such as humans. The only difficulty is in finding mutant genes due to their rarity for a species that doesn't reproduce nearly as much as bacteria.” First, I’m not sure what you mean by “has evolved resistance to a gene”. There has been a lot of noise about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, but this is not on account of the bacteria mutating defenses as a response. What happens is that antibiotics kill the ones with no resistance and the survivors, who are resistant, reproduce. I recognize that mutation is still involved but not reactively. Contrary to what you might think, I do acknowledge both mutation and natural selection. If I did not understand what you were talking about, my apologies. Secondly, I also acknowledge that amazing things are accomplished by biologists. The experiment you mentioned, and things similar, are intriguing and, I believe, quite valuable. But that is not the issue I’m trying to explore here. Mutations are touted as the means for the development of every single species, both plant and animal, both living and extinct. That means that mutations and them only, are responsible for such things as blue whales evolving from some land mammal (one related to cows, pigs and sheep was the last theory I heard). Perhaps this seems reasonable to you. It does not to me. I do not think that it can be demonstrated that mutations are effective enough to do things like this. Selection, adaptation, etc. are not even part of the argument. It comes down to nothing but mutations. "So what EXACTLY do you mean that this claim is "unsubstantiated?" " No conclusive evidence. “You should note that larger brains do not equate to higher intelligence” Generally, of course they do. Why would you want to argue that muscle mass is an obvious advantage and a bigger brain is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penny1 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Penny1, “You haven't the IQ” Okay, your IQ soars and mine is unimpressive. Let’s let that be a given. You said it, not me. “A scientist does not snap his mind shut like an unread book, because he has already reached his own conclusions on a matter. A scientist proposes hypotheses, reviews hypotheses of his peers, he analyses, tests and retests.” And who could disagree with this? You do, by virtue of your behavior. You do not respond to criticism in an honest way, in fact do not even bother to refute any evidence that has been presented to you. You simply ignored an enormous post I made explaining that 1.26 X 10^46 mutations occurred preceding the emergence of eukaryotic cells. Why? Because you are intellectually dishonest. You are, in fact, a liar, by virtue of playing innocent, when you are anything but. “It seems you know less about science than you pretend to.” Well then, let’s also consider that I am ignorant as well as dull. We might as well get these things out of the way. Otherwise you’ll feel compelled to keep pointing them out. You also took this out of context. You don't know when to quit, do you? No wonder debates with you degenerate into childish bickering. You have a whole role of little mind games and tricks up your sleeve, don't you? Hey, you launch sarcasm and personal attacks at other people, you asked for it. “BTW, there you go again, taking words out of context…..You just jumped all over this statement of a well-known hypothesis, which I mentioned in passing…..” Well Penny, I’m trying to avoid snapping my mind shut. I understand that a “primordial soup” is indeed part of a well-known hypothesis. But I’m not familiar with the “analyses, tests and retests” to do with it. Didn’t you say that hypotheses require this? No, a hypothesis does not require this. Only a theory. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. Why? It has been reproduced, again and again, in the laboratory. The results are reproducible by anyone who cares to try the experiment, and who has the education, ability and means. “There is an intimate relationship between DNA and RNA. RNA is assembled from DNA in DNA based lifeforms. RNA forms the blueprint for proteins. RNA also replicates itself from other RNA. It is not total conjecture, it is simply biological fact.” But wait just a second. Earlier you said this: “…..there was no such thing as self-correcting DNA, or even DNA, for that matter. We had RNA. In that case, mutations were much more frequent, since there was no self-regulating mechanism to correct it….” So there was a time when there was only RNA. But now there is an intimate relationship between RNA and DNA, and RNA is assembled from DNA. Do you see the problem here? Can you provide the “tests and retests” data that shows the more primitive molecule mutating into the more advanced one? Can you provide the same for how RNA came about before there was even anything to mutate? No. No. Molecules do not "mutate" into another kind of chemical. Chemicals can undergo chemcical reactions which cause the atoms they contain to be rearranged into new chemical forms. You don't seem to even understand the meaning of the word "mutate". Mutate means strictly a chemical change in the base pair in a particular sequence of DNA or RNA. It doesn't apply to ANYTHING ELSE. Further, you can't replace DNA with RNA, and vice versa. They are really quite similar, chemically. If you hadn't taken my quote out of context, LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO, you would know that I meant "DNA in proto-living structures". In other words, before bacteria, we had strands of RNA without cellular membranes that behaved like living things, but were not yet alive. These strands of RNA aided in the assembly of DNA into structures. I didn't say DNA wasn't present at all in the environment, I said living things were not yet composed of DNA. The DNA was THERE ALL ALONG. I apologize for not being more specific. If you want "proof" RNA can reassemble DNA, it's an established fact. Go here: Building blocks of life discovered: Protein Enzymes http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20030113/onpress2.html "The RNA World": the hypothesis that the first living things were composed of RNA, not DNA: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/RNAworld.html Retro-viruses a relic of the missing link between RNA-based and DNA-based genetics: http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/tutorial/virorig.html Introduction to nucleic acids: http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/nucleic-acids.html “It is a fact that prokaryotes contain RNA and not DNA” You are wrong. Do I have to make sure that every little thing you say in passing is not erroneous? No, you don't. In fact, according to Jesus, the only person you need to correct is yourself. What a hypocrite. “and it is a fact that these were the only lifeforms for 2 billion years.” Well, since you have accepted this conclusion with a scientist’s mentality, I’m sure you understand why I would like to see the “analyses, tests and retests” which prove this. I'm particularly interested in how biologists date things like this. Oh, you would, would you? Go to college. Take a class. Or, better yet, look it up on the Internet. You are rich and priveleged enough to have it sitting there right on your desk: an Encyclopedia at your fingertips. This is your responsibility, not mine. I've had enough of you. You are guilty of the sin of SLOTH. Even an atheist would agree with me on this. You expect everyone to do all the work for you, then you ignore all that hard work, sit back and criticize. That is unethical, and it is also hypocritical, since you claim to be a Christian. By doing this, you reveal your deep cynicism and hatred for others. I have had it up to HERE BURN, BABY, BURN! “And yes, species do "evolve sufficiently," and no, mutation is not the "only mechanism" as you put it. There is mutation AND adaptation, competition for natural resources, predation, environmental conditions, and survival of the fittest. This is natural selection, which you totally ignore.” No, I didn’t ignore selective processes. They are just not involved yet. You have to account for the change before it can be selected or deselected. Mutation IS the only mechanism for change. And since mutations are about structural revisions in RNA or DNA molecules, you have a problem. You haven’t even accounted for proteins. Did they self-assemble? What is the process? Natural selection is ALWAYS INVOLVED. It has been since before the first bacteria emerged. Mutation is NOT the only mechanism for change. Mutation is the means by which diversification occurs, but it is NOT the only means of change. There are changes in gene pool, genetic drift, extinction, etc. etc. Those are all changes, and you can hardly deny it. I do not have any sort of a problem. It is you who have got a problem. You are a very sick man. I'll bet your coworkers won't even come within a mile of you, do they? You know why? Cause you're manipulative, slothful, lazy and arrogant, that's why. What a fine example you set for the rest of us for what Christians are really like! You are pretending to be sincere, but you are not, since you are deliberately trying to lead the conversation. I am not here to be interrogated by you. I'll bet you already know the answers, or think you do (you do not). You are not my college professor. You are an armchair lunatic. You are also in serious need of a hobby. Quit wasting my precious time. “I and others have found numerous gaps in your logic, and you ignore them” And I detect logic problems as well. Here is one of yours: “you want scientists to reproduce life in the laboratory from lifeless matter. It ain't gonna happen, txviper. Can't do it. It took billions of years to do it”…………’It takes billions of years. If you'd bothered to do your homework, txviper, you'd know that.” No, it DID NOT take billions of years to do it. Prokaryotes have supposedly been around for billions of years, not forming themselves for that long. They "appear" in the pre-cam fossil record don't they? You believe in something that you have no basis for. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It took half a billion years just for cellular life to emerge. It took 3 billion years for life as we know it (multicellular life) to emerge. I don't have any logic problems, txviper, but apparently, you do, since you believe in something that you have no basis for. It's called the BIBLE. Knowing that book, why am I not surprised? You are just the opposite of everything a Christian claims to be, in fact, you are the opposite of everything a decent person should be. “Just don't confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution. They are two separate theories, and it's obvious you can't tell the two apart.” I can, and I also understand why evolutionists demand this. In evolution, you at least have mutations to theorize with. It is still a chore, but then evolutionists have always had the advantage of talking about evidence but not producing any. (They can get by with this because their “peers” do it also). I guess that’s why I enjoy talking with them. They are people of astonishing faith, even it it’s misdirected. Even though you show your lack of faith and cynicism in nearly everything you say and do. Judge yourself first. If you want evidence, then follow the links I presented you with. If not, then quit whining. You can always look it up yourself on the Internet, if you're so inclined. There is no crime greater than wasting other people's time. I do not need to give you a college education, or refer to basic knowledge every step of the way. You question basic tenets of biology that, if they were not true, life itself could not exist, and you would not be able to sit here jeering at me. You are wholly ignorant of the functions of your own body, which keeps you alive. People have lives of their own. They come on here to engage in intelligent discourse, not to get beaten over the head by a troll who pretends to have an open mind, but does not. People do not have time to gather evidence for you, txviper, unless it is their life's work. Gather your own evidence, if you can interpret it correctly. You are wasting everyone's time on here. It's time for you to leave. Not only that, but you derive perverse satisfaction from criticizing the mistakes of others, while never apologizing for your own. Why is your name "txviper"? Is that because you spit poison at others, or is it because you're full of venom? Or, cold blooded? Or, all of the above? "Can you describe just where you would draw the line between origins and evolution?" -txviper I don't need to. I already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts