Jump to content


Photo

Natural Selection


  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#61 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 January 2009 - 01:44 AM

If mutation and natural selection by themselves are not enough for adaptation to occur, then genetic algorithms would not have worked. They work pretty well, so what exactly is the problem?

View Post

Adaptation does occur, no thanks to mutation or 'natural selection'. Just like algorithms, life is preprogrammed to adapt. Recombination and gene expression are two known mechanisms.

#62 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 08 January 2009 - 12:01 AM

Adaptation does occur, no thanks to mutation or 'natural selection'.


The nylon eating bacteria adapted to its environment, where its environment was rich in nylon for it to eat. This adaptation was caused by a mutation. This mutation has been FOUND. It is OBSERVABLE. The mutation was then SELECTED FOR, since it was clearly superior.

This example clearly shows that you are wrong. Do you concede the point now that I have shown that you are in error?

Just like algorithms, life is preprogrammed to adapt.


Evidence please. Simply claiming something to be true does not make it true.

Recombination and gene expression are two known mechanisms.

View Post


Yes, they are two known mechanisms. Other known mechanisms that play a role in adaptation are mutation and natural selection. Recombination alone cannot add new traits, it can only speed up the speed at which different traits in combination with one another can be 'tested' against a specific environment.

#63 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 January 2009 - 08:17 AM

The nylon eating bacteria adapted to its environment, where its environment was rich in nylon for it to eat. This adaptation was caused by a mutation. This mutation has been FOUND. It is OBSERVABLE. The mutation was then SELECTED FOR, since it was clearly superior.

This example clearly shows that you are wrong. Do you concede the point now that I have shown that you are in error?

You have not shown that I am in error. You have one case that was formerly hopeful, and gets weaker and weaker the more we learn. It has been discussed.

http://www.evolution...1655&qpid=23147

http://www.evolution...c=1844&hl=nylon

http://www.evolution...opic=1180&st=20

If you'd like to demonstrate your claim, I suggest doing so in a thread that bears more directly upon the subject.

Evidence please. Simply claiming something to be true does not make it true.

Had you left my sentences together, everyone would see that the evidence was in the very next sentence: Recombination and gene expression. You acknowledge them yourself, so it's a tad late to cry for links.

Yes, they are two known mechanisms. Other known mechanisms that play a role in adaptation are mutation and natural selection. Recombination alone cannot add new traits, it can only speed up the speed at which different traits in combination with one another can be 'tested' against a specific environment.

View Post

See? You even acknowledge that they are adaptive, so there goes the potential to feign protest over that issue. Please don't play any more silly pranks.

#64 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 January 2009 - 12:26 AM

Hi BVZ,

The nylon eating bacteria adapted to its environment, where its environment was rich in nylon for it to eat. This adaptation was caused by a mutation. This mutation has been FOUND. It is OBSERVABLE. The mutation was then SELECTED FOR, since it was clearly superior.


Who said the adaption was due to a mutation?Evolutionists call any change in the genome a mutation,which may or may not have anything to do with mutations.


Thanks.

#65 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 09 January 2009 - 05:13 AM

Hi BVZ,
Who said the adaption was due to a mutation?Evolutionists call any change in the genome a mutation,which may or may not have anything to do with mutations.
Thanks.

View Post


All changes in the genomes of bacteria are mutations.

#66 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 09 January 2009 - 05:42 AM

Who said the adaption was due to a mutation?Evolutionists call any change in the genome a mutation,which may or may not have anything to do with mutations.
Thanks.

View Post



All changes in the genomes of bacteria are mutations.

View Post



I see you were right Jason ;) Was that prophetic, or "Induction in action"!

#67 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 January 2009 - 09:44 AM

Just like CTD said "Life is preprogrammed to adapt".A mutation is an accidental mistake to a gene.Even gene duplications are'nt what we can consider mutations,because nothing has happened to the genes,we just have more of the same genes now.

Bacteria adapting to feed on nylon is an example of preprogrammed adaptation,evidence of intelligent design not random mutation.

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.

http://www.answersin...i3/bacteria.asp

It did'nt occur randomly "accidentaly" in one bacteria and natural selection then killed off the remaining population so the mutation could reach fixation,it occured in the entire population at the same time.So here we have a change which did not require natural selection or genetic mutation.




Thanks.

#68 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 January 2009 - 11:57 AM

It did'nt occur randomly "accidentaly" in one bacteria and natural selection then killed off the remaining population so the mutation could reach fixation,it occured in the entire population at the same time.So here we have a change which did not require natural selection or genetic mutation.
Thanks.

View Post

I wasn't aware of that detail (what I bolded). They're even more desperate and deceptive than I thought. This is splendid evidence of design! I'm guessing the strategy was to preemptively publish disinformation about the case in order to make us averse to mentioning it.

Of course the opportunity to fog things up with phony definitions of 'mutation' is one they welcome; mustn't forget that!

#69 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 12 January 2009 - 02:22 AM

I see you were right Jason  ;)  Was that prophetic, or "Induction in action"!

View Post


Are you saying that any change in the genetic material of bacteria is NOT a mutation? What do you think it is then?

Do you know what a mutation is?

A mutation is a copy mistake. Bacteria replicate by creating exact copies of itself. If it does not manage to make a 100% accurate copy of itself, a mutation must have taken place.

If you think this is not a mutation, what do you think it is then?

#70 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 January 2009 - 03:30 AM

Are you saying that any change in the genetic material of bacteria is NOT a mutation? What do you think it is then?

Do you know what a mutation is?

A mutation is a copy mistake. Bacteria replicate by creating exact copies of itself. If it does not manage to make a 100% accurate copy of itself, a mutation must have taken place.

If you think this is not a mutation, what do you think it is then?

View Post


I see you still don't get it.... Has the Bacteria become something other than a Bacteria? .... Answer: NO

#71 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 January 2009 - 10:50 AM

Are you saying that any change in the genetic material of bacteria is NOT a mutation? What do you think it is then?

Do you know what a mutation is?

A mutation is a copy mistake. Bacteria replicate by creating exact copies of itself. If it does not manage to make a 100% accurate copy of itself, a mutation must have taken place.

If you think this is not a mutation, what do you think it is then?

View Post

The two definitions are far from synonymous. A change that is the result of machinery preprogrammed to make changes is not a mistake. Recombination results in many changes, but none of them are copying errors.

Bacteria are introduced into such discussions erroneously. Either they are a red herring because they don't undergo recombination and don't have mechanisms to mechanically shuffle their DNA, or they do have these things and the person discussing them is unaware or unwilling to acknowledge all the facts. In neither case will bacteria suffice to argue the point.

#72 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 January 2009 - 02:15 PM

I could'nt have said it better myself,but let me add something anyway.

From the link I posted.

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.


Only one pre-existing transposase enzyme out of five present on the pOAD2 plasmid caused the genetic recombination.All of the genes and transposase elements were pre-existing,no increase of genetic information or mutation of genetic information was involved.

The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.


This adaptation was reproduced in the lab. and the entire population adapted to feeding on nylon in just nine days.How in the world could bacteria be forced to feed on nylon for millions of years waiting for some miraculous mutation and natural selection?Without pre-programmed adaptation they would starve and die out in very short order.







Thanks.

#73 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 January 2009 - 05:15 PM

This adaptation was reproduced in the lab. and the entire population adapted to feeding on nylon in just nine days.How in the world could bacteria be forced to feed on nylon for millions of years waiting for some miraculous mutation and natural selection?Without pre-programmed adaptation they would starve and die out in very short order.
Thanks.

View Post


It just goes to show that if you force feed something (someone) garbage long enough, their bound to swollow it...

What our evolutionist friends fail to realize is; millions of years doesn't make bacteria into anything but bacteria... There's no scientific evedence of it, so it has to be taken on "faith" alone (as in "Blind Leap").... Yes, I just dropped the f-bomb. And I'm not ashamed...

Keep it clean guys ;)

#74 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 13 January 2009 - 01:49 AM

A few pointers for you guys:

1) When under stress, copy errors increase. This does not make the copy errors anything other than copy errors. Copy errors ARE mutations. That is the DEFINITION of mutations.

2) Nylon is a new material, and it is MANMADE. It was invented in the 1930's. So the question : "If bacteria can develop the ability to digest nylon in 9 days, why did they not do it in the past million years?" is pointless, since nylon was not present before the 1930's.

3) Bacteria do not mate. They make copies of themselves. If a bacteria attempts to split itself, and either of the two copies does not have IDENTICAL genetic material to the original, THEN A MUTATION HAS OCCURRED. All changes in the genetic material of bacteria ARE MUTATIONS, since there is no other way for them to get there.

4) We are not discussion speciation here, so the fact that bacteria will always be bacteria is off topic. Even though it is off topic, I will quickly mention this: Evolution sais that any offspring of an organism will always fall within a subgroup of that organism. In other words, the decendants of a mammal will always be a mammal. The decendants of a bacteria will always be a bacteria. The offspring of a vertabrate will always be a vertabrate.

5) The mutation allowing the nylon bug to digest nylon is a frame shift mutation. It has been identified. They have even grown new bacteria that can digest nylon, and it was caused by a different mutation.

From these 5 pointers, it should be easy to see why mutations can be selected for or against to drive adaptation/evolution.

#75 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 January 2009 - 08:38 PM

A few pointers for you guys:

1) When under stress, copy errors increase. This does not make the copy errors anything other than copy errors. Copy errors ARE mutations. That is the DEFINITION of mutations.

2)  Nylon is a new material, and it is MANMADE. It was invented in the 1930's. So the question : "If bacteria can develop the ability to digest nylon in 9 days, why did they not do it in the past million years?" is pointless, since nylon was not present before the 1930's.

3) Bacteria do not mate. They make copies of themselves. If a bacteria attempts to split itself, and either of the two copies does not have IDENTICAL genetic material to the original, THEN A MUTATION HAS OCCURRED. All changes in the genetic material of bacteria ARE MUTATIONS, since there is no other way for them to get there.

4) We are not discussion speciation here, so the fact that bacteria will always be bacteria is off topic. Even though it is off topic, I will quickly mention this: Evolution sais that any offspring of an organism will always fall within a subgroup of that organism. In other words, the decendants of a mammal will always be a mammal. The decendants of a bacteria will always be a bacteria. The offspring of a vertabrate will always be a vertabrate.

5) The mutation allowing the nylon bug to digest nylon is a frame shift mutation. It has been identified. They have even grown new bacteria that can digest nylon, and it was caused by a different mutation.

From these 5 pointers, it should be easy to see why mutations can be selected for or against to drive adaptation/evolution.

View Post

Are you sure bacteria don't have preprogrammed mechanisms which allow them to adapt? There is certainly a lot of evidence suggesting otherwise, and it is widely acknowledged by evolutionists, the kind paid to investigate these things. Myself, I'm content to follow the evidence.

#76 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:17 AM

1) When under stress, copy errors increase. This does not make the copy errors anything other than copy errors. Copy errors ARE mutations. That is the DEFINITION of mutations.


And so what ?

2)  Nylon is a new material, and it is MANMADE. It was invented in the 1930's. So the question : "If bacteria can develop the ability to digest nylon in 9 days, why did they not do it in the past million years?" is pointless, since nylon was not present before the 1930's.


Nylon is a polymer.It´s an organic material.It´s irrelevant if it´s manmade.its chemical properties are the same of all organic compounds.That´s the reason why bacterias can digest it.

3) Bacteria do not mate. They make copies of themselves. If a bacteria attempts to split itself, and either of the two copies does not have IDENTICAL genetic material to the original, THEN A MUTATION HAS OCCURRED. All changes in the genetic material of bacteria ARE MUTATIONS, since there is no other way for them to get there.


You are wrong.Bacterias get genetic material through plasmids.

4) We are not discussion speciation here, so the fact that bacteria will always be bacteria is off topic. Even though it is off topic, I will quickly mention this: Evolution sais that any offspring of an organism will always fall within a subgroup of that organism. In other words, the decendants of a mammal will always be a mammal. The decendants of a bacteria will always be a bacteria. The offspring of a vertabrate will always be a vertabrate.


So, what ?

5) The mutation allowing the nylon bug to digest nylon is a frame shift mutation. It has been identified. They have even grown new bacteria that can digest nylon, and it was caused by a different mutation.


No, it´s not.I think you didnt read the article carefully.

#77 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 January 2009 - 07:05 AM

A few corrections to your pointers (if you don’t mind)….

A few pointers for you guys:
1) When under stress, copy errors increase. This does not make the copy errors anything other than copy errors. Copy errors ARE mutations. That is the DEFINITION of mutations.

View Post

Now you’re just arguing semantics… And this in no way helps the cause of macroevolution, as we discussed previously, because microevolution is nothing more than adaptation within a species (or a kind). So, this evolutionary apologetic line is moot because it posits the unknown, the illogical and therefore the un-provable (in-as-much-as macroevolution is concerned).

As an aside, if a copy has an error, it ceases to be a copy….

2)  Nylon is a new material, and it is MANMADE. It was invented in the 1930's. So the question : "If bacteria can develop the ability to digest nylon in 9 days, why did they not do it in the past million years?" is pointless, since nylon was not present before the 1930's.

View Post


Your line of argumentation is circuitous and fallacious in many ways because:

Misconception #1- Nylon is not manmade, it is man manipulated from organic sources (unless you have some empirical proof that man created any of these materials from scratch). Man made none of the materials; therefore the term “MANMADE” is, in actuality, a misnomer.

Misconception #2- The erroneous belief that “nylon was not present before the 1930's” is a fallacy, because all the organic ingredients that make up nylon have been around since creation.

Presupposition #1- That bacteria can or cannot develop the ability to digest organic material in the past million years is a purely a priory statement because no-one was here to do the scientific study… But, by inductive evidence we can speculate that bacteria should be able to digest most any organic materials (though, it remains mere speculation).

Presupposition #2- Making the statement “ ‘If bacteria can develop the ability to digest nylon in 9 days, why did they not do it in the past million years?" is pointless”, is itself pointless because it is based on unproven and speculative opinion…

3) Bacteria do not mate. They make copies of themselves. If a bacteria attempts to split itself, and either of the two copies does not have IDENTICAL genetic material to the original, THEN A MUTATION HAS OCCURRED. All changes in the genetic material of bacteria ARE MUTATIONS, since there is no other way for them to get there.

View Post


Again, semantics… The correct term is split, but if you wish to use the word copy, that’s ok… The fallacy in your faux-dictum then is exposed within this line of questioning; where does the material come from that gives them the ability to “split”? Where does the mutative material that corrupts the copy come from as well? How does any of this information help the cause of macroevolution?

You see, in order to make definitive and sweeping statements like “Bacteria do not mate. They make copies of themselves”, you must have the all-encompassing knowledge and proof to back up such a statement.

4) We are not discussion speciation here, so the fact that bacteria will always be bacteria is off topic. Even though it is off topic, I will quickly mention this: Evolution sais that any offspring of an organism will always fall within a subgroup of that organism. In other words, the decendants of a mammal will always be a mammal. The decendants of a bacteria will always be a bacteria. The offspring of a vertabrate will always be a vertabrate.

View Post


Speciation in this conversation is NOT off topic at all, because if you extend your line of argument out-and-out, it HAS to led to speciation… But I thank you for your above statement because in it you’re saying that since “descendants of a mammal will always be a mammal”, then there (according to that statement) have always been mammals (from the beginning), because; if a mammal cannot evolve from a fish, a reptile or an invertebrate (or vice versa) according to your logic, then there has to have always been mammals (and on that, I will tend to agree with you)….

Thank you… You have just disproven evolution on any level (other than adaption within a species [or kind]). You’ll probably attempt to wiggle out of your statement here… That’s why I saved it for posterity.

5) The mutation allowing the nylon bug to digest nylon is a frame shift mutation. It has been identified. They have even grown new bacteria that can digest nylon, and it was caused by a different mutation.  From these 5 pointers, it should be easy to see why mutations can be selected for or against to drive adaptation/evolution.

View Post


And, as I said above (when you attempted to say “We are not discussing speciation here”) that your argument would lead directly to speciation, because you attempted to go there in your conclusion above. BUT, your conclusion is incorrect for many reasons:

1- Microevolution is nothing more than adaption within a species (or a kind).
2- Macroevolution is not proven (nor is it provable in our lifetimes, or the history of man)
3- Nylon is made of organic materials, and therefore there is no reason to ASSUME mutation in order for bacteria to consume it.
4- You admitted that man (mammalian) cannot come from a reptilian, fish or invertebrate ancestor. And yet you want to argue for macroevolution at every turn.


Your line of argumentation was circuitous, fallacious and biased; and therefore unscientific at it’s base.

#78 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 January 2009 - 05:23 AM

A few corrections to your pointers (if you don’t mind)….

Now you’re just arguing semantics… And this in no way helps the cause of macroevolution, as we discussed previously, because microevolution is nothing more than adaptation within a species (or a kind). So, this evolutionary apologetic line is moot because it posits the unknown, the illogical and therefore the un-provable (in-as-much-as macroevolution is concerned).


I was addressing a claim made by CTD, namely that mutation and selection cannot cuase adaptation. Since mutations clearly DO play a role, his claim is wrong.

As an aside, if a copy has an error, it ceases to be a copy….


Wrong. If a copy is being made, and a copy error occurs, it is a flawed copy. If this happens when genetic material is being copied, it is called a mutation.

Your line of argumentation is circuitous and fallacious in many ways because:

Misconception #1- Nylon is not manmade, it is man manipulated from organic sources (unless you have some empirical proof that man created any of these materials from scratch). Man made none of the materials; therefore the term “MANMADE” is, in actuality, a misnomer.


Since my argument does not rely on nylon baing manmade, I will let this one slide. My argument only requires it not to exist before 1935.

Misconception #2- The erroneous belief that “nylon was not present before the 1930's” is a fallacy, because all the organic ingredients that make up nylon have been around since creation.


All the material needed for YOU to exist has been around for millions of years, and yet your existance started when you were conceived. Do you see why your argument is rediculous? The existance of the materials that is GOING TO BECOME something, does not constitute the existance of that thing. Just because organic material has been around, does not mean that nylon has been around.

But feel free to state that nylon has existed before its invention, but do not be surprised when people laugh at you.

Presupposition #1- That bacteria can or cannot develop the ability to digest organic material in the past million years is a purely a priory statement because no-one was here to do the scientific study… But, by inductive evidence we can speculate that bacteria should be able to digest most any organic materials (though, it remains mere speculation).


This is not a complex argument, so I am having trouble figuring out why you cannot follow it. Here it is again. Nylon did not exist PRIOR to 1935. Bacteria that can digest nylon DOES exist. The REASON they can digest nylon is because of a mutation. The mutation has been found. The bacteria has adapted to an environment rich in nylon.

This simply demonstrates the following:
1) New useful traits can be caused by mutations.
2) Mutations and selection can result in adaptation.

Notice how this argument does not rely on anything that is not observable?

Presupposition #2- Making the statement “ ‘If bacteria can develop the ability to digest nylon in 9 days, why did they not do it in the past million years?" is pointless”, is itself pointless because it is based on unproven and speculative opinion…


As long as you agree that the argument is not a good one, my point is made.

Again, semantics… The correct term is split, but if you wish to use the word copy, that’s ok… The fallacy in your faux-dictum then is exposed within this line of questioning; where does the material come from that gives them the ability to “split”? Where does the mutative material that corrupts the copy come from as well? How does any of this information help the cause of macroevolution?


Not sure why you are dragging macroevolution into this discussion, since I was not talking about that. I was simply stating that mutations DO play a role in adaptation, in response to a claim made by CTD.

I find it interesting that you repeatedly accuse me of arguing semantics... and then you say that bacteria do not 'make copies of themselves', no no, they 'split'. As if that somehow addresses any of the points I make. How can you accuse me of 'arguing semantics' and then pull this? Hypocritical much?

You see, in order to make definitive and sweeping statements like “Bacteria do not mate. They make copies of themselves”, you must have the all-encompassing knowledge and proof to back up such a statement.


Are you saying that bacteria DO NOT make copies of themselves?

Speciation in this conversation is NOT off topic at all, because if you extend your line of argument out-and-out, it HAS to led to speciation… But I thank you for your above statement because in it you’re saying that since “descendants of a mammal will always be a mammal”, then there (according to that statement) have always been mammals (from the beginning), because; if a mammal cannot evolve from a fish, a reptile or an invertebrate (or vice versa) according to your logic, then there has to have always been mammals (and on that, I will tend to agree with you)….


You should read more carefully. Again, this is not complex, so I am not sure what it is you are having trouble with.

If I say the following: 'A mammal will always be a mammal.' This does not mean that it HAS ALWAYS BEEN a mammal.

For example, vertabrates will always be vertabrates. Mammals will always be mammals, but all mammals are vertabrates. So all mammals will always vertabrates as well. Read up on cladistics if you are interested.

Thank you… You have just disproven evolution on any level (other than adaption within a species [or kind]). You’ll probably attempt to wiggle out of your statement here… That’s why I saved it for posterity.


All that you have done is to show that you have reading comprehension problems.

And, as I said above (when you attempted to say “We are not discussing speciation here”) that your argument would lead directly to speciation, because you attempted to go there in your conclusion above. BUT, your conclusion is incorrect for many reasons:

1- Microevolution is nothing more than adaption within a species (or a kind).


Agreed. However, the problem with using the word 'microevolution' is that 'species' (the way you use it here) is an arbitrary man-made term. Species are usually groups of organisms grouped together by thier traits. (Colour, Length, Shape etc.)

Since 'species' is arbitrary, 'Microevolution' is arbitrary as well.

2- Macroevolution is not proven (nor is it provable in our lifetimes, or the history of man)


Nothing is science can ever be proven.

3- Nylon is made of organic materials, and therefore there is no reason to ASSUME mutation in order for bacteria to consume it.


The mutation HAS BEEN FOUND. It HAS BEEN FOUND. It is OBSERVABLE. Do you understand why I dont have to ASSUME that a mutation is responsible?

4- You admitted that man (mammalian) cannot come from a reptilian, fish or invertebrate ancestor. And yet you want to argue for macroevolution at every turn.
Your line of argumentation was circuitous, fallacious and biased; and therefore unscientific at it’s base.

View Post


No. What I said is that mammals will always be mammals. Notice how this does not mean that mammals HAVE ALLWAYS BEEN mammals?

I choose my words carefully, so I expect you to read them carefully as well. Could you do that?

So does anyone still think that mutations do not play a role in adaptation?

#79 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 January 2009 - 07:14 AM

If I say the following: 'A mammal will always be a mammal.' This does not mean that it HAS ALWAYS BEEN a mammal.

For example, vertabrates will always be vertabrates. Mammals will always be mammals, but all mammals are vertabrates. So all mammals will always vertabrates as well. Read up on cladistics if you are interested.
All that you have done is to show that you have reading comprehension problems.
Agreed. However, the problem with using the word 'microevolution' is that 'species' (the way you use it here) is an arbitrary man-made term. Species are usually groups of organisms grouped together by thier traits. (Colour, Length, Shape etc.)

Since 'species' is arbitrary, 'Microevolution' is arbitrary as well.
Nothing is science can ever be proven.
The mutation HAS BEEN FOUND. It HAS BEEN FOUND. It is OBSERVABLE. Do you understand why I dont have to ASSUME that a mutation is responsible?
No. What I said is that mammals will always be mammals. Notice how this does not mean that mammals HAVE ALLWAYS BEEN mammals?

I choose my words carefully, so I expect you to read them carefully as well. Could you do that?

View Post

Wouldn't invertebrates always be invertebrates? Or is this one of those quirky rules one has to be proficient with special pleading in order to understand?

#80 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 15 January 2009 - 08:20 AM

I was addressing a claim made by CTD, namely that mutation and selection cannot cuase adaptation. Since mutations clearly DO play a role, his claim is wrong.

View Post


After reading CTD’s responses, the gist I get from the conversation isn’t that “mutation and selection cannot cause adaptation”, but that the evolutionists attempt to carry it beyond what it is actually doing (i.e. to macroevolution):

“Adaptation does occur, no thanks to mutation or 'natural selection'. Just like algorithms, life is preprogrammed to adapt. Recombination and gene expression are two known mechanisms.” - CTD

Adaptation does play a role, so if you want to use the word mutation, that is up to you. But, by all observational science, adaptation works back and forth within the environment that surrounds the adaptee.

You like to use the words “mutation and selection” positing the connotation that there is a driving force behind them. But you don’t want to accept what that actually means! You cannot have an action “selection” without a “selector”. You choose to use the word “Evolution” to describe the selector (and sometimes you use the word “Nature” as well), without realizing that you are breathing sentience into the word and giving it life-force.

Wrong. If a copy is being made, and a copy error occurs, it is a flawed copy. If this happens when genetic material is being copied, it is called a mutation.

View Post


Wrong, if it is different from the original in any way , it is no longer a copy…..

Since my argument does not rely on nylon baing manmade, I will let this one slide. My argument only requires it not to exist before 1935.

All the material needed for YOU to exist has been around for millions of years, and yet your existance started when you were conceived. Do you see why your argument is rediculous? The existance of the materials that is GOING TO BECOME something, does not constitute the existance of that thing. Just because organic material has been around, does not mean that nylon has been around.

But feel free to state that nylon has existed before its invention, but do not be surprised when people laugh at you.

View Post


You argument does rely on it being man made, so it doesn’t matter if you let it slide or not. The FACT of the matter is this: All of the ingredients for nylon DID exist prior to 1935 (you cannot deny that). If the ingredients were around, and bacteria could digest it them, why does it amaze you so that bacteria can digest it in its current configuration? Simply because you bought into the idea that they couldn’t, and you we proved wrong? Stick around because that most likely will happen a lot…

You have no proof that “All the material needed for ME to exist has been around for millions of years”, because you have absolutely no idea what existed, or how it existed prior to RECORDED HISTORY. Now, you may pretend you know, but that is nothing more than a presupposed tautology. If you want to argue probabilities, that’s fine, but leave your dogmatism at the door when you do…

And, as usual, you have shown the propensity to misquote what you don’t understand (or don’t want to understand). I at no time (anywhere) said “nylon has existed before its invention”. If you can show where I said that, I desire you to provide it… I don’t expect an apology for your intentional ridicule of my statement, when you personally twisted it out of context. I just wanted to insure others here observed your actions..

This is not a complex argument, so I am having trouble figuring out why you cannot follow it. Here it is again. Nylon did not exist PRIOR to 1935. Bacteria that can digest nylon DOES exist. The REASON they can digest nylon is because of a mutation. The mutation has been found. The bacteria has adapted to an environment rich in nylon.
This simply demonstrates the following:
1) New useful traits can be caused by mutations.
2) Mutations and selection can result in adaptation.
Notice how this argument does not rely on anything that is not observable?
As long as you agree that the argument is not a good one, my point is made.

View Post


I cannot understand why you balk at the simple understanding that ALL the ingredients for nylon DID EXIST prior to 1935. Bacteria could digest those materials then, why would you conclude that they couldn’t now? Adaptation did happen, no one has denied that. If you wish to call it mutation, that is your dictionary to write…

This simply demonstrates the following:

Major Premise- Nylon existed prior to 1935
Minor Premise- Bacteria could digest the ingredients then.
Conclusion- Bacteria adapted to the taste of a combination of materials that they could digest previously!

Notice how this argument does not rely on you circular argumentation!

And now another one:
Major Premise- New useful traits are caused by adaptation.
Minor Premise 1- Adaptation has been proven through induction.
Minor Premise 2- Evolutionists try to argue what cannot be proven and still try to call it science.

Conclusion – Believe what you can prove, be skeptical of what you cannot.

Notice how this argument relies on common sense?

It doesn’t matter if you agree with this argument, my point is still made.
The FACT that you had to mention your misunderstanding of these facts twice during this post shows me that you need more convincing of scientific truths.


Not sure why you are dragging macroevolution into this discussion, since I was not talking about that. I was simply stating that mutations DO play a role in adaptation, in response to a claim made by CTD.

View Post


Because, eventually you’ll try to get it into the conversation. After all macroevolution is the cornerstone of evolution. So I saved you some steps. Unless you’re going to attempt to say microevolution doesn’t lead to macroevolution… Then, I’d have to agree with you!

I find it interesting that you repeatedly accuse me of arguing semantics... and then you say that bacteria do not 'make copies of themselves', no no, they 'split'. As if that somehow addresses any of the points I make. How can you accuse me of 'arguing semantics' and then pull this? Hypocritical much?

Are you saying that bacteria DO NOT make copies of themselves?
You should read more carefully. Again, this is not complex, so I am not sure what it is you are having trouble with
.

View Post



Again, you are putting words into my mouth BVZ… Show me where I said “bacteria do not 'make copies of themselves”. I desire you to back up your words with proof… If you cannot deal with the statements I made, that’s one thing. But, if you have to twist them to cover for yourself, that’s quite, another…

I said “The correct term is split, but if you wish to use the word copy, that’s ok”. If you wish to use the word multiply, that is just as well…

I went on to say: “The fallacy in your faux-dictum then is exposed within this line of questioning; where does the material come from that gives them the ability to “split”? Where does the mutative material that corrupts the copy come from as well? How does any of this information help the cause of macroevolution?”. And this is the part of the discussion you failed to address…. Instead, you attacked with more semantics… Address what I was talking about, or just say that you don’t know..

If I say the following: 'A mammal will always be a mammal.' This does not mean that it HAS ALWAYS BEEN a mammal.
For example, vertabrates will always be vertabrates. Mammals will always be mammals, but all mammals are vertabrates. So all mammals will always vertabrates as well. Read up on cladistics if you are interested.

View Post



And there is where your logic (and science) falls apart BVZ… You can say “'A mammal will always be a mammal.', with proof of consistency in induction. But when you say “This does not mean that it HAS ALWAYS BEEN a mammal.”, you are doing so of your own authority, with absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence… And this is what you don’t understand, therefore is what you struggle with as well.

All that you have done is to show that you have reading comprehension problems.
Agreed. However, the problem with using the word 'microevolution' is that 'species' (the way you use it here) is an arbitrary man-made term. Species are usually groups of organisms grouped together by thier traits. (Colour, Length, Shape etc.)
Since 'species' is arbitrary, 'Microevolution' is arbitrary as well.

View Post


I just wanted to say that I appreciate your insult here because it does show your desperation. This is a typical atheistic tactic (see “Personal Attacks” in ikesters signature “anticreationist debate tactics.”.)

Just to help you out a little: Species

1. Taxonomic group: biology a subdivision of a genus considered as a basic biological classification and containing individuals that resemble one another and may interbreed.

2. Organisms in species: biology the organisms belonging to a species.
3. Humankind: human beings or the human race.

4. Type of something: a kind, sort, or variety of something.

5. Atom Category: chemistry a category of atomic nucleus, ion, molecule, or atom.

6. Subdivision of genus: logic in logic, a collection of objects or individuals that, on the basis of shared features, form a subdivision of a genus.

Now, you want to pretend the word species is “is an arbitrary man-made term”. The fallacy in your logic is that ALL words and languages man-made… But you use of the term arbitrary, is itself arbitrary based on your logic (or lack thereof)… If you make a statement such as “'species is an arbitrary man-made term”, you MUST back it up with evidence (which you have not)…. And therefore render your opinion moot on the subject.

And the word microevolution:

Limited Change: minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time.

Held within the context of the conversation (and my statements), there was nothing arbitrary about it at all. And you provided no evidence for its arbitrariness. Again rendering your opinion on the subject to be moot as well.

You see, you cannot simply string words together, and declare your opinion as authoritative. You have to supply substance to it as well. And this is where your argument fails.


Nothing is science can ever be proven.

View Post


What? Have you completely bought into the “Postmodernism” theology? Do you realize how inane that statement is? I can PROVE, by induction, that if I chop your hand off with a cleaver, your hand is severed from your arm… Now, here’s the fun inductive part… I’ll lop off your other hand as well, just to prove my theory (now this is science). Unfortunately, you only have two hands, but my point will be made as unequivocally proven… And if you require more proof, we’ll start with your feet…. Does that sound like fun????

If you want to argue the Hume hypothesis, let’s have at it…..


The mutation HAS BEEN FOUND. It HAS BEEN FOUND. It is OBSERVABLE. Do you understand why I dont have to ASSUME that a mutation is responsible? No. What I said is that mammals will always be mammals. Notice how this does not mean that mammals HAVE ALLWAYS BEEN mammals?

View Post


Again, you entirely miss the point… So wide of the mark that you’re hitting someone else’s target. You reiterate you’re a priori argument “how this does not mean that mammals HAVE ALLWAYS BEEN mammals”. To which I reply, show me the empirical evidence!

You cannot, therefore you are being dogmatic in your assertions, and are relying on faith!

I choose my words carefully, so I expect you to read them carefully as well. Could you do that?

View Post


I read them carefully the first time, and am still awaiting a cogent and logical response…

So does anyone still think that mutations do not play a role in adaptation?

View Post


Again, if you wish to use the word “Mutation” to describe adaption…. That’s up to you!



Sorry about the script, but I seem to have the same issues BVZ is experiencing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users