Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?

The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth

If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods. There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion.

Regarding the question itself: no. Religion has no middle ground. Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out. Science has an alternate: not knowing. The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true." It's either true, or not fully supported. So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it. That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being. And that's ok in science, but not religion.

REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car. It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.

The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?

What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

No, that's not necessary.

You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic. Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?

Here are a few topic suggestions:

• The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
• How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
• What genetics tells us about evolution
• How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information

Wait wait. You pick a topic. You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.

So what do you think of adaptive mutations suggested by Dr. spetner ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?

The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth

If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods. There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion.

Regarding the question itself: no. Religion has no middle ground. Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out. Science has an alternate: not knowing. The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true." It's either true, or not fully supported. So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it. That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being. And that's ok in science, but not religion.

REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car. It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.

The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?

What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

No, that's not necessary.

You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic. Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?

Here are a few topic suggestions:

• The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
• How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
• What genetics tells us about evolution
• How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information

Wait wait. You pick a topic. You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.

I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.

We can go here.

How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information

Antibiotic Resistance as an Example of Evolution
Spetner: Continuing his effort to show the evolutionary efficacy of beneficial mutations, Max presented in his essay the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by microorganisms as an example of evolution. He said one can “demonstrate a beneficial mutation … with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance.” Such an experiment shows that “de novo beneficial mutations” can arise.

My response to this is that I have shown in my book that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance fail the test of representing the mutations necessary for evolution. I summarize that argument here. All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms. Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant. The mold was found to produce something that could lyse and kill the bacteria. That something was a molecule later named penicillin. Afterwards, other antibiotics were found to be produced by other microorganisms, such as soil bacteria. Soil has long been recognized in folk medicine as a cure for infections.

The antibiotics produced by these microorganisms serve them as a defense against attack by other microorganisms. Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell. Unfortunately for human health care, the organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have, to our misfortune, succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change. It is an example only of Evolution B. It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium. The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium’s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.

It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide, and this is the kind of example Max presented. Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. This change in the surface of the microorganism’s ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution A cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

In the final paragraph of my original critique, I said the following:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by NDT that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO! Many have lost information. To support NDT one would have to show many examples of random mutations that add information. Unless the aggregate results of the genetic experiments performed until now is a grossly biased sample, we can safely dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of how life developed from a single simple source.
Max: You cite the fact that some bacteria grown under selective pressure of this antibiotic become resistant through a mutation that “degrades the molecular match with the antibiotic molecule” representing “a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.” Some streptomycin resistance mutations do, as you point out, reflect mutations of the ribosomal protein S12 which cause loss of binding of this antibiotic, which you interpret as “loss of information.” However, you ignore other mutations of this protein that do not lead to loss of antibiotic binding (e.g. Timms et al., Mol Gen Genet 232:89, 1992). According to your formulation, these mutations would not represent a loss of information, yet they are represent natural mutations that are adaptive under conditions of exposure to streptomycin. Would you accept that this kind of mutation is a good model for an adaptive evolutionary change consistent with Neo-Darwinian Theory?

Spetner: You misunderstood the paper by Timms et al., which you cited. All of the adaptive mutations reported in that paper show reduced binding of the streptomycin molecule. The 12 adaptive mutations reported in the S12 protein fall into two categories. There was no example of what you claimed I ignored. Five of those mutants are designated as streptomycin resistant (Smr), and seven are designated as streptomycin dependent (Smd). All 12 of them, in the words of the authors “reduce the affinity of the ribosome for streptomycin.” Perhaps you would like to point out to me where in that paper they mention mutations in S12 do not lead to reduced binding, and which you claim I have ignored.

Max: My citation of this paper was based on its description of the streptomycin-dependent mutants, which require streptomycin for growth as a result of mutations in the S12 protein. Clearly such mutants have not lost streptomycin binding completely; however it is possible that they have reduced binding affinity, so that according to your criteria-which I do not accept as valid-they might have “lost information.” However, your whole argument about streptomycin seems to be based on the misconception that streptomycin works by binding to the S12 protein. In fact, as mentioned in the Timms paper, the binding is primarily to the 16S ribosomal RNA, not to S12, and the mutations in the S12 protein function to decrease streptomycin by stabilizing a specific conformation of the 16S rRNA that does not bind streptomycin well (Carter et al., Nature 407: 340, 2000; Moazed & Noller, Nature. 327:389, 1987; Gravel et al., Biochemistry. 26:6227, 1987; Montandon et al, EMBO J. 5:3705, 1986; Pinard et al, FASEB J. 7:173, 1993; Melancon et al., Nucleic Acids Res. 16:9631, 1988).
[LMS: I DON’T KNOW HOW MAX CAN CLAIM THAT MY “WHOLE ARGUMENT” IS “BASED ON A MISCONCEPTION.” HE IS THE ONE THAT INITIALLY WROTE OF STREPTOMYCIN BINDING TO THE S12 PROTEIN. HE SAID “MOST S12 SEQUENCES BIND STREPTOMYCIN.” (SEE BELOW.) IF THERE IS ANY MISCONCEPTION, IT IS HIS. I JUST WENT ALONG WITH HIM IN THAT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK THE ARGUMENT HINGES ON EXACTLY WHERE THE BINDING SITE IS. EXACTLY IN WHICH PROTEIN OF THE RIBOSOME THE BINDING TAKES PLACE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.]
A mutation that causes a specific conformational change in another molecule that in turn prevents efficient binding of a third molecule does not necessarily suggest a “loss of information” to me, even if your protein information metric were valid.
[LMS: IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT A SPECIFIC CONFORMATIONAL CHANGE PREVENTS EFFICIENT BINDING. IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. A SPECIFIC CONFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR EFFICIENT BINDING. CHANGE THAT CONFORMATION AND THE EFFICIENCY OF BINDING IS LOST (OR THERE MAY BE NO BINDING AT ALL). THE LOSS OF SPECIFICITY IS A LOSS OF INFORMATION. THE ABOVE STATEMENTS OF MAX SHOW THAT HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP OF SPECIFICITY TO INFORMATION, AND THAT POINT IS PERHAPS THE SOURCE OF MUCH OF HIS DIFFICULTY.]

There are several other ways of considering how mutations affect information. In my view, even if all S12 mutations that caused streptomycin resistance abolished antibiotic binding, a reasonable argument could still be made that such mutations represent a gain of information rather than a loss. In the universe of all the possible S12 amino acid sequences that can function in the ribosome, essentially all S12 proteins found in “wild-type” bacteria (i.e., those grown in the absence of streptomycin) bind to this antibiotic. The S12 sequences that allow bacterial growth in the presence of streptomycin represent a small subset of the universe of functional S12 sequences. Therefore by growing bacteria in streptomycin we select for a specific and small subset of possible S12 sequences; thus it might be argued that we have forced a small increase the information content of the genome by narrowing the choice of S12 sequences.

Spetner: The set of S12 proteins that allow bacterial growth in streptomycin (i.e., that do not bind to the antibiotic) form a disparate subset of the universe of S12 proteins. My intuition tells me that the set that binds (the susceptible set) is smaller, and therefore has a smaller entropy, than the set that does not bind (the resistant set). Mutations that appear in the presence of the antibiotic convert one subset to the other. A mutation that transfers the enzyme from a low-entropy set to a higher-entropy set loses information; it does not gain it.

Max: There are many sequences of S12 proteins in a variety of “wild type” bacteria. Different species of Gram negative bacteria are commonly sensitive to streptomycin despite variations in S12 sequence; organisms with S12 mutations are very rarely found except under streptomycin selection. Therefore, MY intuition tells me that most S12 sequences bind streptomycin and that the set of S12 sequences conferring streptomycin resistance is smaller than the set conferring sensitivity. What supports your “intuition” that the susceptible set is smaller and therefore has smaller entropy?

[LMS: MAX’S INFERENCE THAT LEADS TO HIS INTUITION IS BASED ON A FLAWED ARGUMENT. ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE FROM THE RARITY OF BACTERIA WITH S12 MUTATIONS THAT MOST SEQUENCES LEAD TO BONDING. MOST BACTERIA HAVE THE SAME S12 SEQUENCE. HE IS CONFUSING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS WITH THE NUMBER OF POSSIBLE AMINO-ACID SEQUENCDES. MY INTUITION ON THIS POINT IS SO STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF MOLECULAR BONDING, THAT I AM AMAZED THAT MAX’S INTUITION TELLS HIM THE OPPOSITE. BEFORE I DESCRIBE THE RELEVANT FEATURES OF THE BONDING OF LARGE MOLECULES, LET ME SAY THAT THE BONDING HAS A SPECIFICITY MUCH LIKE THAT OF A KEY IN A LOCK. THE SET OF KEYS THAT WILL OPEN A PARTICULAR LOCK IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE SET OF KEYS THAT WILL NOT OPEN IT, AND THEREFORE, THE FORMER SET HAS A LOWER ENTROPY THAN THE LATTER SET. THE KEY-LOCK ANALOGY IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING WELL-UNDERSTOOD MECHANISM FOR BONDING BETWEEN LARGE MOLECULES.

NONCOVALENT BONDS, SUCH AS HYDROGEN BONDS, VAN DER WAALS ATTRACTIONS, AND IONIC BONDS ARE MUCH WEAKER THAN COVALENT BONDS, AND IT IS THEY THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BINDING BETWEEN LARGE MOLECULES SUCH A PROTEINS. IF THE CONFORMATIONAL SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES DO NOT MATCH WELL, THEN NO MORE THAN A FEW SUCH BONDS CAN FORM BETWEEN THEM. SINCE THESE BONDS ARE WEAK, THE FEW BONDS THAT FORM ARE EASILY BROKEN BY THERMAL MOTION, AND WE SAY THE MOLECULES DO NOT BIND TO EACH OTHER. IF, HOWEVER, THE SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES CONFORM TO EACH OTHER OVER A LARGE AREA, THEN MANY NONCOVALENT BONDS CAN FORM. THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE MANY BONDS IS STRONG ENOUGH TO RESIST THE DISRUPTING FORCES OF THERMAL MOTION, AND WE SAY THE MOLECULES BIND TO EACH OTHER. SINCE THE SHAPES OF LARGE MOLECULES ARE IRREGULAR, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES CHOSEN AT RANDOM WILL MATCH EACH OTHER OVER A WIDE AREA. THEREFORE, IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MOLECULES THAT FORM A GOOD MATCH TO ANY GIVEN MOLECULE IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE NUMBER THAT FORM A POOR MATCH.]

However, I want to make it clear that I don’t buy your interpretation of certain specific mutations as reflecting a “loss of information.” You state that the “information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are: level of catalytic activity, specificity with respect to the substrate, strength [and specificity] of binding to cell structure, [and] specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation.” This formulation is vague, non-quantitative, not supported by clear logic, not accepted in the scientific literature (to the best of my knowledge; please educate me if I am wrong), and in my view not useful.

Spetner: Ed, the level of your argument here is quite low. You have seen this entire section (above), and you took from the introduction my list of what characteristics can contribute to the information content of an enzyme and criticized it for being non-quantitative (followed by other pejorative epithets). Is that supposed to be some sort of debating tactic? In any case, the tactic is out of place in this discussion. From the context of what I wrote, it should have been clear to you that this partial list of characteristics that can contribute to the information in an enzyme was an introduction to my quantitative estimate of one of the characteristics of specificity of an enzyme. After I showed how one might calculate the information related to a type of specificity, I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%.

It is elementary that specificity translates into information and vice versa. Have you ever played 20 questions? With the YES/NO answers to 20 judicious questions, one can discover a previously-chosen number between 1 and a million. If the questions are well chosen, those YES/NO answers can be worth one bit of information each, and 20 bits can specify one object out of a million. Twenty bit of information translates to specificity of one part in a million. Ten bits - to one part in a thousand.

The Zip codes in the US also demonstrate that specificity and information are two sides of the same coin and go hand in hand. An address in the United States can be completely specified by the nine-digit zip code. One digit of information will narrow down the address from being anywhere in the United States to being in just a few states. Thus if the first digit is a 6, the address is located somewhere in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, or Nebraska.

A second digit of information will add specificity by narrowing down the address further. A 3, 4, or 5 in the second digit puts the address in Missouri. A 3 in the second digit puts it in the eastern portion of the state. Two digits of information are more specific than one.

A third digit of information is still more specific, narrowing down the address even more, making it still more specific. If the third digit is a 1, the address is specific to St. Louis and its suburbs. The next two digits of information pin down the address to within a few blocks. The remaining 4 digits of information can locate a specific building. Thus, it is clear that the information contained in the digits of the zip code translate into specificity.

There is no question about it: SPECIFICITY = INFORMATION.

Not only have I made it clear above that my criterion for gain/loss of information is quantitative, and supported by logic and the conventional understanding of these notions in information theory, I included that section in my first critique of your posting. You chose not to relate to it at all, and instead you made up the above criticism out of thin air.

Max: In my previous comments about your calculation of the “information gain or loss in a mutation” I made some criticisms which you called “pejorative epithets” and which you suggested were “some sort of debating tactic” or “made out of thin air"; but you did not address any of the criticisms substantively, so I will repeat them with more detail in hopes that you will address them. 1. I suggested that your formulation is vague and non-quantitative and not supported by clear logic. You have stated:

Spetner: The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:

Level of catalytic activity
Specificity with respect to the substrate
Strength of binding to cell structure
Specificity of binding to cell structure
Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation

 

[geauxtohell]

I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.

We can go here.....for degradation

I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.

In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.

Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?

Here's a novel idea: take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.

I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the **** "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.

I don't know what "S12 Proteins" are either, so I am not going to bastardize another person's academic work to sound smart or try and bury people that don't agree with me in bandwidth.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.

In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.

Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?

Here's a novel idea: take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.

I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the **** "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.

Come now, GTH. That would take academic integrity and thinking for oneself instead of being an unknowing pawn and vomiting up other people's writings!

I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.

We can go here.

As GTH mentioned, C&P other people's dumb work makes you look dumb. Let's point out some dumb things in his essay!

My response to this is that I have shown in my book that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance fail the test of representing the mutations necessary for evolution.

This doesn't actually say anything. Or make sense. "Fail the test?" What test?

All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms.

Completely false.

Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant.

Yes, it was true in 1928, but in the last EIGHTY YEARS have gone on to develop manufactured antibiotics. Once again, dumb creationists use outdated materials to mislead readers. Dishonesty seems to not apply to good Christian morals, eh?

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change. It is an example only of Evolution B.

This is a made up term. "Evolution B" does not exist. It's bad enough that you are incapable of discerning micro and macro evolution on the genetic level, so even more arbitrary made up jargon is not necessary. The concept of one bacteria acquiring genetic material from another has a name: conjugation. Note how that wikipedia article doesn't have the word evolution anywhere on it.

It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium.

No type of evolution can make a baboon out of a bacterium. This is dumb.

The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A. The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium’s genome, they must add new information to the biocosm.

Evolution A also doesn't exist. The author is correct in stating that evolution demands new information be "added" in the bacteria genome. In fact that is exactly what happens, as I had previously described, as every single biology major in the world has seen first hand.

It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide. Streptomycin is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way.

Huh it's almost as if he just acknowledged that a bacteria can evolve in the exact same point I've made previously.

But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT.

Yay! Another made up term without explanation! So he admits evolution occurs, but then says it doesn't count because it doesn't work for his made up term which he doesn't explain. Fantastic!

Max: You cite the fact that some bacteria grown under selective pressure of this antibiotic become resistant through a mutation that “degrades the molecular match with the antibiotic molecule” representing “a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.”

Loss of specificity does not necessitate a loss of information. This is dumb. If I take your house key and attach a dictionary to the end of it, it has acquired a ton of information even though it is no longer specific to opening your front door.

Furthermore, the author singles out that one antibiotic for a reason. If he acknowledged any other antibiotic resistance mechanisms, his point would COMPLETELY fall apart. Some mechanisms, for example, work by increasing the export of antibiotic, like bailing water out of a sinking ship. It's not only new information but a gain of function.



The amusing parts near the beginning ran out, as the author turned towards a written temper tantrum. Nonetheless, I've already demonstrated that his entire premise consists of made up terms, undefined terms, and also agrees with evolution.

At the end of the day, this goes to show that NEW INFORMATION is still attained from ISOLATED BACTERIA, supporting evolution. This is "microevolution" as you define it. Now you're going against your own claim and the small amount of sense you initially presented?

 

[FA_Q2]

So which theory do you believe in ?

No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.

I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.

Yes, science has brought us many good things.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.

If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.

Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.

Again, EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THERE IS NO CREATOR. Stop falling back to that point as it does not exist. You HAVE ignored the evidence as it CLEARLY points toward common ancestry and evolutionary methods of modern creatures existing. You say you simply see a different answer for that evidence but this is a perfect example of FORCING the evidence to fit the theory in place of making a theory that fits the evidence. Notwithstanding that you have failed to show how ANY of this fits into ID anyway. Yes, HERE you have ignored the evidence and failed to post anything that shows a coherent scientific theory.

1. You still have failed to separate micro and macro evolution and Geauxtohell has very clearly called you out on this point. Ignoring it does not make your point, it destroys it.

2. Science does not need to explain abiogenesis. I clearly stated the reason in my last post but again you feel that it is fine to ignore it. Here it is again - EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ON HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING AND DEVELOPING FROM PREVIOUS FORMS. IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE BEGINING. IN SCIENCE, I DON'T KNOW IS A VALID ANSWER. Is it so damn hard to accept I don't know. You thing you know EVERYTHING? Realize that people did not understand lightning at one time and so attributed the phenomenon to Thor and Zeus throwing bolts down from the mountains. Today, we realize the enormity of that bullshit. Today we have matured enough to not need an explination for EVERYTHING right NOW.

3. Assumptions? What assumptions?

 

[Old Rocks]

One very important point here.

There is no evidence that a Diety exists. None, nada, zip. So you are stating that something that there is no evidence for created everything as it is, in the face of evidence from every branch of science that evolution occured, is occuring at present, and will occur as long as life exists. We have the evidence in the rocks of this planet that life started out very simple and progressed to where it is today.

Note that I did not state that a Diety does not exist, but that there is no evidence for the existance of a Diety. If that is too nuanced for you, I suggest the conversation cease at this point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?

The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth

If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods. There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion.

Regarding the question itself: no. Religion has no middle ground. Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out. Science has an alternate: not knowing. The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true." It's either true, or not fully supported. So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it. That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being. And that's ok in science, but not religion.

REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car. It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.

The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?

What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

No, that's not necessary.

You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic. Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?

Here are a few topic suggestions:

• The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
• How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
• What genetics tells us about evolution
• How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information

Wait wait. You pick a topic. You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.

You don't believe in abiogenesis do you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.

We can go here.....for degradation

I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.

In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.

Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?

Here's a novel idea: take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.

I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the **** "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.

I don't know what "S12 Proteins" are either, so I am not going to bastardize another person's academic work to sound smart or try and bury people that don't agree with me in bandwidth.

First thing is, there are many things i am still learning as well. I'm not here trying to make a mockery of someone elses work. I am just showing there is two sides of the argument and there is nothing set in stone from your side. If evolutionist are really in search of truth and not trying to prove an ideology, then there is more info to consider then blindly being spoonfed theories with holes in it.

That is what i enjoy about both sides is they do work and make it available to the public that don't make these issues our lifes work. Without the creationist there would have been no way for me to have these discussions. I enjoy these give and takes from both sides,but it would not be possible without guys like Dr. Max and Dr. Spetner making their work and give and take available.

You guys accuse me of being underhanded and dishonest ,for what ? posting critiques of work done that contains obvious flaws. How can you call it science unless you truly question all explanations and assumptions and put it to the test. You guys do the same thing you come here and you present what you have learned whether from a book or by actual testing.

Even though Dr.Max and Dr. Spetrner disagree on things they still have respect for each other,Dr. Max showed that by admitting what Dr.Spetner brought up was interesting and said that Dr. Spetner is a good scientist. The thing is this is going on in all fields of science. But the important question is if it turns out there is no way for mutations to be the enigine of macroevolution then what ? because the fossil record failed to produce proof.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.

In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.

Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?

Here's a novel idea: take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.

I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the **** "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.

Come now, GTH. That would take academic integrity and thinking for oneself instead of being an unknowing pawn and vomiting up other people's writings!

I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.

We can go here.

As GTH mentioned, C&P other people's dumb work makes you look dumb. Let's point out some dumb things in his essay!


This doesn't actually say anything. Or make sense. "Fail the test?" What test?


Completely false.


Yes, it was true in 1928, but in the last EIGHTY YEARS have gone on to develop manufactured antibiotics. Once again, dumb creationists use outdated materials to mislead readers. Dishonesty seems to not apply to good Christian morals, eh?


This is a made up term. "Evolution B" does not exist. It's bad enough that you are incapable of discerning micro and macro evolution on the genetic level, so even more arbitrary made up jargon is not necessary. The concept of one bacteria acquiring genetic material from another has a name: conjugation. Note how that wikipedia article doesn't have the word evolution anywhere on it.


No type of evolution can make a baboon out of a bacterium. This is dumb.


Evolution A also doesn't exist. The author is correct in stating that evolution demands new information be "added" in the bacteria genome. In fact that is exactly what happens, as I had previously described, as every single biology major in the world has seen first hand.


Huh it's almost as if he just acknowledged that a bacteria can evolve in the exact same point I've made previously.

But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT.

Yay! Another made up term without explanation! So he admits evolution occurs, but then says it doesn't count because it doesn't work for his made up term which he doesn't explain. Fantastic!

Max: You cite the fact that some bacteria grown under selective pressure of this antibiotic become resistant through a mutation that “degrades the molecular match with the antibiotic molecule” representing “a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.”

Loss of specificity does not necessitate a loss of information. This is dumb. If I take your house key and attach a dictionary to the end of it, it has acquired a ton of information even though it is no longer specific to opening your front door.

Furthermore, the author singles out that one antibiotic for a reason. If he acknowledged any other antibiotic resistance mechanisms, his point would COMPLETELY fall apart. Some mechanisms, for example, work by increasing the export of antibiotic, like bailing water out of a sinking ship. It's not only new information but a gain of function.



The amusing parts near the beginning ran out, as the author turned towards a written temper tantrum. Nonetheless, I've already demonstrated that his entire premise consists of made up terms, undefined terms, and also agrees with evolution.

At the end of the day, this goes to show that NEW INFORMATION is still attained from ISOLATED BACTERIA, supporting evolution. This is "microevolution" as you define it. Now you're going against your own claim and the small amount of sense you initially presented?

Get his book where she shows all the information.

Look i know you're disappointed by his comments,and hate the idea someone might know a little more then what you're taught but don't be such a tool.

You keep claiming everyone should have ideas of their own and should be able to reason the evidence on their own. So quit grandstanding, and produce these ideas that you have that was not a product of someone elses work.

You come across as a bitter person filled with hate and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. Look with my many years on this planet ,i have found there is always someone bigger, tougher,and more intelligent then myself but i am humble enough to accept that fact .why don't you try it.

Learning is fun, but not through arrogance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So which theory do you believe in ?

No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.

I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.

Yes, science has brought us many good things.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.

If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.

Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.

Again, EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THERE IS NO CREATOR. Stop falling back to that point as it does not exist. You HAVE ignored the evidence as it CLEARLY points toward common ancestry and evolutionary methods of modern creatures existing. You say you simply see a different answer for that evidence but this is a perfect example of FORCING the evidence to fit the theory in place of making a theory that fits the evidence. Notwithstanding that you have failed to show how ANY of this fits into ID anyway. Yes, HERE you have ignored the evidence and failed to post anything that shows a coherent scientific theory.

1. You still have failed to separate micro and macro evolution and Geauxtohell has very clearly called you out on this point. Ignoring it does not make your point, it destroys it.

2. Science does not need to explain abiogenesis. I clearly stated the reason in my last post but again you feel that it is fine to ignore it. Here it is again - EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ON HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING AND DEVELOPING FROM PREVIOUS FORMS. IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE BEGINING. IN SCIENCE, I DON'T KNOW IS A VALID ANSWER. Is it so damn hard to accept I don't know. You thing you know EVERYTHING? Realize that people did not understand lightning at one time and so attributed the phenomenon to Thor and Zeus throwing bolts down from the mountains. Today, we realize the enormity of that bullshit. Today we have matured enough to not need an explination for EVERYTHING right NOW.

3. Assumptions? What assumptions?

Assumptions such as mutations being the engine that drives macroevolution.

Or in other words ,the assumption that Microevolution leads to Macroevolution.

Now can you or Geauxtohell prove what Dr.Spetner said concerning Microevolution and Macroevolution wrong ? How did Geauxtohell destroy the facts ?

Dr. Spetner in his own words, I'll add from Dr. Max as well.

fter I posted my critique of Edward E. Max’s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses. The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue. The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments. I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon. My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS".

Introduction
Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins. This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.

I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word “justification” in Spetner’s sentence “But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species. Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence—i.e., a complete list of those mutations—that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
[LMS: MAX’S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION. I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST “OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS” REQUIRED FOR NDT. I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS. AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT. MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION. THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION. THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]

In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is “obliged” to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to “proof.” Although Spetner denies that he is “obliged to prove a non-existence” of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
[LMS: RIGHT. EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT. I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE. BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS’ TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]

Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution. Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm. The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm. To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory. Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory. Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the “creationist” argument against evolution. Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting. If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max’s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You guys should read the reviews on Dr. Spetner's book "Not by chance"at amazon. It's amazing the crowd reading and responding to his book.

 

[konradv]

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it" and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.

No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils. The fossil record shows evolution over time. IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds. Is that what you'd really have us believe? I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.

Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.

I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.

Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us? I'll speak for myself, please. You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea. That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata. Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils. The fossil record shows evolution over time. IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds. Is that what you'd really have us believe? I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.

Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.

I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.

Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us? I'll speak for myself, please. You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea. That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata. Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?

I have no idea.

I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.

What is your view on polystrate trees ?

Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[SmarterThanHick]

First thing is, there are many things i am still learning as well. I'm not here trying to make a mockery of someone elses work. I am just showing there is two sides of the argument and there is nothing set in stone from your side. If evolutionist are really in search of truth and not trying to prove an ideology, then there is more info to consider then blindly being spoonfed theories with holes in it.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to actually support it. Now only are you unable to show where scientists refuse to consider any new ideas, but you can't even point to any new evidence or produce any explanation of that evidence yourself. So, no your point still sucks.

That is what i enjoy about both sides is they do work and make it available to the public that don't make these issues our lifes work. Without the creationist there would have been no way for me to have these discussions. I enjoy these give and takes from both sides,but it would not be possible without guys like Dr. Max and Dr. Spetner making their work and give and take available.

Your problem is that you equate the sides as equal but opposite. They're not. Again, one side produced peer reviewed and scrutinized works where evidence does not refute their conclusions. The other posts opinions to blogs, often times making things up entirely, or using misleading or inaccurate remarks. If a creationist said "that point on evolution is wrong because the bill cosby particle was found in bacteria, thus proving them wrong," you'd not only blindly believe it because you lack education to realize things are completely fabricated, but you'd find it an equal point compared to evidence based science. Even in the discussion you just pointed out, Dr. Spetner isn't even a biologist, and he still believes in evolution.

You guys accuse me of being underhanded and dishonest ,for what ? posting critiques of work done that contains obvious flaws.

No, you misinterpret the scope of why you are underhanded and dishonest. Propagating misinformation under this ridiculously ignorant guise of "well I don't know better" is immature, certainly. But what truly makes you underhanded and dishonest is your inability to actually discuss a topic outright. As soon as the overwhelming evidence corners you, you pretend that part of the conversation never happened and just move on to something else. It's why you are incapable of answering anyone's questions on this thread.

Yes, science demands that new avenues are examined. No, that does not mean made up evidence or information that is proven inaccurate. It means someone presents the evidence, and people like you or I come up with ways to explain the evidence. I have offered you that opportunity in this thread countless time, and you turn away from it without fail. THAT is what makes you underhanded and dishonest: pretending the evidence doesn't exist.

Even though Dr.Max and Dr. Spetrner disagree on things they still have respect for each other,Dr. Max showed that by admitting what Dr.Spetner brought up was interesting and said that Dr. Spetner is a good scientist. The thing is this is going on in all fields of science. But the important question is if it turns out there is no way for mutations to be the enigine of macroevolution then what ? because the fossil record failed to produce proof.

Dr. Spetner still agrees with evolution. They're quibbling about details and the biologist is still right. You have lost the opportunity to gain such respect because you repeatedly forgo the academic integrity demanded in such a discussion. Even in this last paragraph, you return to a topic which we have already proven to be misleading: genetics can single-handedly provide all knowledge needed for evolution, regardless of fossils, and there is no biological difference between microevolution and macroevolution but you continue to insinuate there is. That's lack of academic integrity, underhandedness, and dishonesty. If you came here to learn, you're doing a very poor job at it. Let me know if you have questions, or are ready to actually think for yourself and address some of mine.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Look i know you're disappointed by his comments,and hate the idea someone might know a little more then what you're taught but don't be such a tool.

You keep claiming everyone should have ideas of their own and should be able to reason the evidence on their own. So quit grandstanding, and produce these ideas that you have that was not a product of someone elses work.

You come across as a bitter person filled with hate and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. Look with my many years on this planet ,i have found there is always someone bigger, tougher,and more intelligent then myself but i am humble enough to accept that fact .why don't you try it.

Learning is fun, but not through arrogance.

Generally when I completely demolish your ill-formed points, you just go to something else. This time, you decided to make this weak ad hominem response? Perhaps you finally ran out of distracting topics?

I come across that way because I indulge in squashing ignorance, such as the form you have exhibited here repeatedly. It amuses me.

Everyone SHOULD produce ideas of their own with respect to verified reproducible evidence. I have presented that evidence to you countless times in this thread and you are repeatedly incapable of interpreting it to produce such independent ideas. No, the evidence does not need to come from your own hands. You can interpret other people's verified evidence too, and I have done a mix of the two. But you seem incapable of doing either. Do you not have a brain of your own or do you just choose not to use it? You tell me why you avoid the evidence and everyone's questions here.

I think the thing you don't realize is that I have home-field advantage. Science demands a standard that exceeds the folk stories and tall tales that religion produces. It demands an academic integrity and honesty which you clearly lack. It doesn't surprise me that you interpret me as believing I know it all and that no one is smarter than me. That's not it. The real issue is that I have that academic integrity. I know the rules of the game, and I have home-field advantage. You're coming into our house, and getting pretty heavily beaten around when you don't play by our rules, not because you don't know them, because I've told you how to discuss something academically, but because you continually choose to ignore them. Your ignorance demands you do so. It's why people like you are not found to be educated in these areas, as those qualities either prevent people like you from acquiring such education in the first place, or are quickly broken after starting it.

With that being said, I fully acknowledge there are people smarter than me in this world. But if your authors lack the same academic integrity as you do, they will receive a similar response, and it has nothing to do with who is smarter. The flip side of that is that YOU should take responsibility for the crap you blindly copy and paste, to ensure you are actually propagating smart ideas by people who exhibit honesty.

So which theory do you believe in ?

No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.

I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.

Yes, science has brought us many good things.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.

If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.

Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.

Again, EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THERE IS NO CREATOR. Stop falling back to that point as it does not exist. You HAVE ignored the evidence as it CLEARLY points toward common ancestry and evolutionary methods of modern creatures existing. You say you simply see a different answer for that evidence but this is a perfect example of FORCING the evidence to fit the theory in place of making a theory that fits the evidence. Notwithstanding that you have failed to show how ANY of this fits into ID anyway. Yes, HERE you have ignored the evidence and failed to post anything that shows a coherent scientific theory.

1. You still have failed to separate micro and macro evolution and Geauxtohell has very clearly called you out on this point. Ignoring it does not make your point, it destroys it.

2. Science does not need to explain abiogenesis. I clearly stated the reason in my last post but again you feel that it is fine to ignore it. Here it is again - EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ON HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING AND DEVELOPING FROM PREVIOUS FORMS. IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE BEGINING. IN SCIENCE, I DON'T KNOW IS A VALID ANSWER. Is it so damn hard to accept I don't know. You thing you know EVERYTHING? Realize that people did not understand lightning at one time and so attributed the phenomenon to Thor and Zeus throwing bolts down from the mountains. Today, we realize the enormity of that bullshit. Today we have matured enough to not need an explination for EVERYTHING right NOW.

3. Assumptions? What assumptions?

Assumptions such as mutations being the engine that drives macroevolution.

Or in other words ,the assumption that Microevolution leads to Macroevolution.

Now can you or Geauxtohell prove what Dr.Spetner said concerning Microevolution and Macroevolution wrong ? How did Geauxtohell destroy the facts ?

Dr. Spetner in his own words, I'll add from Dr. Max as well.

fter I posted my critique of Edward E. Max’s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses. The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue. The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments. I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon. My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS".

Introduction
Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins. This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.

I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word “justification” in Spetner’s sentence “But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species. Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence—i.e., a complete list of those mutations—that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
[LMS: MAX’S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION. I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST “OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS” REQUIRED FOR NDT. I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS. AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION. EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT. MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION. THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION. THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]

In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is “obliged” to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to “proof.” Although Spetner denies that he is “obliged to prove a non-existence” of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
[LMS: RIGHT. EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT. I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE. BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS’ TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]

Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that. The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution. Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world. All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution. Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm. The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm. To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory. Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory. Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the “creationist” argument against evolution. Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting. If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max’s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.

no one is reading any of that. Use your own words.

You guys should read the reviews on Dr. Spetner's book "Not by chance"at amazon. It's amazing the crowd reading and responding to his book.

You should read a biology book.

Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself. But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.

 

[Youwerecreated]

no one is reading any of that. Use your own words.

You should read a biology book.

Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself. But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.

I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.

I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.

By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.

Is that why no one, yourself included, is producing any remarks on that block of text you just pasted? Yeah, just keep thinking that. In the meantime, perhaps you should use your own words.

I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.

And yet you still seem to be clueless on the basic tenants of evolution. So either you weren't a very good student, or you didn't go to a very good school. I mean, you've gotten it wrong more times than I can count. And I'm not talking about the finer points that you don't understand, I mean what the meaning of the word evolution is and what its boundaries are. You haven't gotten ANYTHING correct.

By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.

This is rather immature reasoning, don't you think? Make a point, and I'll respond. Meanwhile I can't help but point out how many topics in evolution you have not responded to or generally ignored, including the FACT that new information is produced in mutation, there is no difference between micro and macro evolution at the genetic level, and how all reproducible verifiable evidence all show evolution to be correct. I guess since you continue to ignore all those points they're all correct?

Also, Dr. Spetner supports evolution. Or did you miss that part while you were blindly copying and pasting?

 

[geauxtohell]

no one is reading any of that. Use your own words.

You should read a biology book.

Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself. But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.

I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.

I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.

By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.

You are still having a hard time with this notion that nobody is readying your copy and paste jobs. You could hide the combination to your safe in there and we'd never know it, because we aren't reading it. I don't know what your intent is in posting that stuff, but my own perception is that, since you can't argue the issue on your own, you are simply trying to bury us in another person's words.

That's not going to work. If there is something salient you want to reference, why not just pick that out and go with it?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Because that would be an honest and straight-forward means of communication, and show some academic integrity. Then he wonders why he is underhanded and dishonest.

 

[geauxtohell]

Because that would be an honest and straight-forward means of communication, and show some academic integrity. Then he wonders why he is underhanded and dishonest.

I think it is totally "academically dishonest" in the purest sense of the word (not to impugn his personal character, but to simply say that this is sub-par for any sort of academic discussion).