Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 296

Thread: ERV matched in ape DNA

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Is there anyone who doesn't think species come from earlier species?
    There are certainly more people who think that species evolve from earlier species than there are than people who think species evolve from later species.
    ‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    You know already that I have proposed an undefeated argument concluding that is not the case.

    A computer model that models evolution as the mechanism is stated and not as the code writer wishes it to be does not exist, or has not been made public.

    I know this because this program would be able to produce data logs showing how IC systems are formed. That would be big news and certainly a Nobel Prize for the scientist.
    Why, there have been IC system that have been shown to EVOLVED in the lab. Gasp. Imagine that.

    A True Acid Test
    ‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Why, there have been IC system that have been shown to EVOLVED in the lab. Gasp. Imagine that.
    Wow I am pretty ignorant then
    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by Esdraelon View Post
    It seems that with any discourse with a liberal they degenerate into this.

    Freedom has countered every challenge and when it gets to the end, you libs lash out as if it somehow bolsters your case to call him an 'ignorant creationist'.

    Don't look now, but he's got yer number.
    I don't think you understand any of this in the least, so I wouldn't be claiming that just because Freedom wrote a really long post (surprising!) that he refuted anything. I think you are an ignorant human only piping in like a cheerleader. Go, Freedom!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    I don't think you understand any of this in the least, so I wouldn't be claiming that just because Freedom wrote a really long post (surprising!) that he refuted anything. I think you are an ignorant human only piping in like a cheerleader. Go, Freedom!

    ROFLMAO! "You don't think", exactly, and you just made my case. Thanks!
    If one desires to know what the weasel was doing in the hen house, don't ask the weasel, ask the hens.

    "It's not that politicians don't learn anything, they learn what they can get away with, and then blame everyone else when they get caught." Thomas Sowell

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Why, there have been IC system that have been shown to EVOLVED in the lab. Gasp. Imagine that.

    A True Acid Test
    Even Behe admits that the system they were able to develop is IC (by his definition). His only refutation is that the scientists interfered in the experiment and invalidated the experiment. Yeah, the scientists wrote a new gene to produce a new enzyme and a new activation sequence and then spliced that into the bacteria and it all worked perfectly. Give me a break. This is equivalent to saying that OJ's DNA was found at the crime scene because the evidence could have been contaminated due to mishandling.

    Freedom, this is exactly what you claim is impossible. I read your post BTW, more of the same 'refusing to accept the facts' gibberish as always. Your whole argument is based on this statment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom
    It seems a ridiculous thing to have to ask but it is the question that you have not been able to answer without one of these fallacies:

    1. You have claimed that systems can change function
    2. You have implied that systems do not have to be selected for because mutation may cause them to appear by chance.
    First off, in "A True Acid Test," Ken Miller shows that genes in the bacteria mutated to take on the new function. Behe even points this out and says that a brand new gene didn't evolve, so this doesn't qualify as a new system. What he misses is that we never argue that brand new genes form at once. In fact, this would be ridiculous. We say that changes in the genome result in new or changed genes. This is exactly what happened. So, obviously, no fallacy with a system changing function since there it is right there in your face. Also, there is your second fallacy happening right there in the lab. The system was not being selected for, but its function was. So as soon as the system took on the new function, it was selected for and the rest is history. So all that you wrote in that surprisingly long post is based on the assumption that these two mechanism of mutation are impossible.

    BTW, please start proofreading your post. A lot of your sentences are not complete or don't make sense and it is hard to assume what's going on in your mind.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Now, there is a very large problem with Behe's response.. Let's take a look at his claims, and show how his response is inadequate.

    Let's first look at what Behe says about the Hill experiment.

    All of the other functions for lactose metabolism, including lactose permease and the pathways for metabolism of glucose and galactose, the products of lactose hydrolysis, remain intact, thus re-acquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new B-galactosidase function. (Hall 1999)

    Thus, contrary to Miller's own criterion for "a true acid test," a multipart system was not "wiped out"--only one component of a multipart system was deleted.
    Now, that is the DEFINITION of an IC system is it not? If any one component of the system is removed, the system ceases to function. That is what Hill did. By removing a single piece, he stopped that function from happening.

    Now, Behe then says 'A near identical' piece replaced it.. But, that is not quite accurate. You see, not one gene evolved to create a new system.. the gene did not get replaced by another gene. Instead, there were 3 different genes that provided 3 different functions for the digestion of Lactic acid to occur. This fact is overlooked by Behe. None of the original genes were recycled in the new structure. So, Behe is guilty of misrepresenting what happened.

    This is what Ken Miller pointed out in the original page the responded to Behe's response.


    The Experiments in Question

    In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.

    In my book I quoted evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma's description of these experiments:

    "Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]

    What's Wrong with this Description?

    Behe, predictably, was unimpressed with these experiments, and went so far as to call my claims "extravagant." Were they? Let's see:

    First, Behe says that Hall did not wipe out a "multipart system" as I claimed; he deleted just one gene. Well, that's what I wrote, too. My description clearly and correctly states that Hall started his experiments "by deleting the structural gene for galactosidase," a single gene. However, I did indeed write that this deletion had knocked out a "multipart system." Why? Because once the gene was deleted, three components had to evolve to replace its function: First, a new galactosidase enzyme, second, a new lactose-sensitive control region, and third, a new way to switch on the lac permease gene. And, just as Futuyma and I pointed out, that's exactly what happened - all three parts eventually evolved.

    Second, Behe is particularly scornful of the fact that the "new" galactosidase enzyme didn't evolve from scratch, but was produced by a small number of mutations in an existing gene, albeit in an operon far distant from the deleted galactosidase gene. In a similar way, the gene for the repressor of this newly-evolved galactosidase, a protein that controls its expression, was rendered lactose-sensitive by a simple mutation in its sequence. In other words, the "new" 2-part system was produced by a couple of rather minor mutations in two pre-existing genes.

    Professor Behe may be unimpressed by these mutations, but he's missing the point. This is how evolution generally works - by minor modifications of pre-existing genes to serve new purposes. He emphasizes that the ebg gene is "homologous " to the lac proteins and overlaps them in "activity," but these statements are quite misleading. The pre-existing enzyme activity of the ebg gene is not enough to support the metabolic needs of the cell, and the ebg gene is actually only 34% homologous to the gene whose activity it replaces (meaning that about 2/3 of the protein is quite different from the galactosidase gene whose function it replaces). The repressor (control) gene is even more different, showing just 25% homology to the lac repressor.

    Therefore, my original descriptions of these two genes and the mutations that produce galactosidase activity in them were accurate and correct.

    Third, Behe points out that the lac permease which was eventually activated by yet another mutation is a pre-existing protein. It has to be there before the experiments are carried out, and it is not produced from scratch. That's true, of course, but that's also exactly what I wrote. What is new and different, of course, is that the ebg gene product, which originally could not catalyze the chemical reaction needed to switch on the permease gene, acquired that ability by means of another mutation. This chemical reaction, not the permease protein itself, is the third part of the system, even if Dr. Behe is unimpressed by the mundane way in which it evolved.

    Fourth, he notes that I did not mention that the bacteria in the experiment were supplied with the artificial inducer IPTG. The use of this inducer, he charges, amounts to "intelligent intervention" in the process, thereby invalidating the results as an example of Darwinian evolution. His criticism, once again, misses the point. We cannot even begin such an experiment without deleting the beta-galactosidase gene, and that is necessarily an act of "intelligent intervention." He does not object to that, of course.

    However, when Hall grew the bacteria under selective conditions designed to favor re-evolved galactosidase activity, Behe cried foul. As he should know, and as Futuyma wrote, "... mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." All that Hall had done was to set up conditions where the bacteria would survive (although just barely), and would prosper only if they evolved a system to replace the one he had deleted. Behe calls this "intervention," implying that the investigator had to intervene directly to produce the new system. He didn't of course. All that Hall did was to use that inducer to set up growth conditions that would ensure that the mutants, if they appeared, could survive to be recovered and analyzed. In short, he screened for mutants, he didn't produce them as Behe implies.

    Behe is perfectly free to describe the results of these experiments as "a series of micromutations," but he's missing the key question. That question, of course, is whether or not these "micromutations" assembled a system that would fit Behe's description of "irreducible complexity." As I will show, they do.


    and further

    Achieving Irreducible Complexity

    Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:

    (1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
    (2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
    (3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease

    Unless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system. Behe quotes a single sentence from Hall's 1999 Paper (FEMS Microbiology Letters 178: 1-6) to the effect that "reacquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new beta-galactosidase function." The quote is accurate, but Hall is describing only the enzymes directly involved in lactose metabolism (number 2 in my list above), not the regulatory parts that make the pathway function (numbers 1 and 3). In the very same paper Hall wrote:

    "Genes for enzymes with new or improved catalytic activities do not arise from random DNA sequences; they evolve from existing genes whose products exhibit activities that are more or less related to the "novel" activity."

    As I wrote in Chapter 5 of my book, the well-matched parts of the newly evolved system include both the new enzyme and both new regulatory steps:

    "Lactose triggers a regulatory sequence that switches on the synthesis of an enzyme that then metabolizes lactose itself. And the products of that successful lactose metabolism then activate the gene for the lac permease, which ensures a steady supply of lactose entering the cell. Irreducible complexity."

    The fact that each of these parts were scavenged from pre-existing genes doesn't compromise this example a bit. At the time Hall deleted the true galactosidase gene, not one of these three components existed in its final, functional form. Mutation and selection produced each of them, not from scratch as Behe would demand, but from pre-existing genes. As Meléndez-Hevia and his co-authors paraphrased Jacob in their study of the Krebs cycle "evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists" [ J Mol Evol 43: 293-303 (1996)].

    Behe's Criticizes the ebg System because it is Fashioned from Pre-existing Genes.
    But that is Exactly how Evolution Works!

    Are Adaptive Mutations non-Darwinian?

    One of the interesting aspects of the ebg system, as Behe notes, is that the several mutations that produce the evolved system seem to appear much more frequently than one might expect for a truly random process. Hall and others refer to the elevated mutation rates observed during prolong non lethal selection as part of a process of "adaptive mutation." Behe says that it is "misleading" to use such a system "to argue for Darwinian evolution," because it violates the most basic assumptions of Darwinism with respect to the randomness of mutations. James Shapiro, one of the leading workers in the field of adaptive mutations, would find this reasoning strange indeed. In a 1997 review on adaptive mutations Shapiro noted that:

    "the ability to increase the frequency of potentially useful mutations is beneficial (adaptive) for the bacterial population undergoing selection. It is worth noting that observations on the influence of environmental conditions on the levels of hereditary variation are hardly novel and go back at least as far as the opening chapter of Darwin's Origin of Species." [Shapiro, JA, Trends in Genetics 13: 98-104 (1997)]

    In short, Darwin would not have been surprised. And he certainly would not have found the phenomenon to be a violation of basic Darwinian principles, as Behe would have readers believe.
    ‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    I don't think you understand any of this in the least
    I think you pretend to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    so I wouldn't be claiming that just because Freedom wrote a really long post (surprising!) that he refuted anything.
    Did you read it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    I think you are an ignorant human only piping in like a cheerleader. Go, Freedom!
    Is cheering against the rules here or do you need another opponent to ignore?

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Even Behe admits that the system they were able to develop is IC (by his definition).
    They didn't devlop it, and if they did develop is not the same as evolve.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    His only refutation is that the scientists interfered in the experiment and invalidated the experiment. Yeah, the scientists wrote a new gene to produce a new enzyme and a new activation sequence and then spliced that into the bacteria and it all worked perfectly. Give me a break. This is equivalent to saying that OJ's DNA was found at the crime scene because the evidence could have been contaminated due to mishandling.
    His refutation was that:
    1. Functionality already existed in the so called evolved protein
    2. Artificial metabolic stimulation was required for the cells to work

    The first is what I immediately suspected upon reading the link.

    The second would invalidate the experiment as showing evolution in any case as evolution does not factor in "This was needed so the lab technician added a few moles."

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Freedom, this is exactly what you claim is impossible. I read your post BTW, more of the same 'refusing to accept the facts' gibberish as always. Your whole argument is based on this statment:
    I claimed a functional protein couldn't be optimized after it was artificially put in the situation where it could function?

    Did you read about the experiments we are talking about, there would be no lactose inside the cell at all if it weren't for the researchers design.

    How do you think it would have started to metabolize it without letting it through the cell membrane?

    Ignore that pretend that the control system was independent of hydrolyzing the sugar, the protein in question already functioned simply not as well as the original, this was optimization precisely what I believe NS can do.

    The problem with evolution as I have shown is a logical one not a data one, you can't say that since some human machines fly a car may fly. Even if you have a theory that states "human machines fly" and observe planes. Similarly you can't say evolution can overcome IC, even if you have a theory that states it can and observe it being overcome.

    Like all scientific theories there must be an explanation it is not sufficient to say this is predicted and this has happened.

    Now you have come back several times with the specific objection, I do not mean to say that there needs to be a specific explanation for every instance of a theory but the rule must be explained.

    The theory of gravity does not require that the motion of every single object be analysed for the effect of gravity for it to be sound, it does require that the theory explains how any given object would be effected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    First off, in "A True Acid Test," Ken Miller shows that genes in the bacteria mutated to take on the new function.
    They were capable of the function from the start and there so called original function is not known.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Behe even points this out and says that a brand new gene didn't evolve, so this doesn't qualify as a new system. What he misses is that we never argue that brand new genes form at once. In fact, this would be ridiculous. We say that changes in the genome result in new or changed genes. This is exactly what happened. So, obviously, no fallacy with a system changing function since there it is right there in your face.
    It is not right there and if it were are you going to claim that natural selection caused it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Also, there is your second fallacy happening right there in the lab. The system was not being selected for, but its function was.
    What is the point in separating a system from it's function? If the system was not being selected for than the system was not being selected for. It is tautologous and I can't believe you are seriously continued this line of argument.

    Are you saying that if a system did function it would be selected for?

    A system's improved function is always what is selected for, it's function cannot be selected for without function.

    I say that since my second fallacy is a fallacy it is not happening in a lab and cannot happen in a lab.

    If you want to deny this come out and say it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    So as soon as the system took on the new function, it was selected for and the rest is history.
    Retroactive natural selection huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    So all that you wrote in that surprisingly long post is based on the assumption that these two mechanism of mutation are impossible.
    What two?

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    BTW, please start proofreading your post. A lot of your sentences are not complete or don't make sense and it is hard to assume what's going on in your mind.
    I am sorry, in my zeal to rid my self of the accusation of minimalist posting I wrote everything that came into my head.


    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Now, that is the DEFINITION of an IC system is it not? If any one component of the system is removed, the system ceases to function. That is what Hill did. By removing a single piece, he stopped that function from happening.
    He then proceeded to restart it by activating lac permease production.

    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Now, Behe then says 'A near identical' piece replaced it.. But, that is not quite accurate. You see, not one gene evolved to create a new system.. the gene did not get replaced by another gene. Instead, there were 3 different genes that provided 3 different functions for the digestion of Lactic acid to occur. This fact is overlooked by Behe. None of the original genes were recycled in the new structure. So, Behe is guilty of misrepresenting what happened.
    A near identical piece does not imply gene recycling, as he pointed out the homology in the proteins was not a test of evolution for very little novelty formed.

    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    "Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]

    What's Wrong with this Description?
    What functionality not provided artificially already existed so it is false to claim an entire system of lactose utilization evolved.

    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Unless all three are in place, the system does not function
    Yes the system did not function, that is why it was on artificial substitutes. If you take those out of the equation the system did function, the unmutated protein was capable of hydrolyzing lactose.
    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Behe's Criticizes the ebg System because it is Fashioned from Pre-existing Genes.

    But that is Exactly how Evolution Works!
    What fashions new systems from pre-existing genes?

    If this is how evolution works then how does it work itself?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    657
    A system's improved function is always what is selected for, it's function cannot be selected for without function.
    You don't seem to get what Miller did here at all. A brand new system evolved to break down lactic acid! Further, the way the bacteria did this conforms to your and Behe's IC. Before the experiment, none of the bacteria could do this. After some time, they could. Wow! Evolution! What do you think it is? Is this not natural selection?

    It is, because the selection mechanism is only concerned with one thing: survival.

    Your next claim will likely be, "well none of the bacteria would have survived if Miller had not supplied them with necessary nutrients that before the mechanism evolved, the bacteria could not produce on their own." But you will likely ignore that this is not even relevant. Bottom line is, a selection based on survival, even if you don't call it NS, resulted in a three part system to improve the viability of the bacteria and any of these three parts if removed cause the function of the system to cease. The system was not there before, now it is. You can't refute this. These are facts and your little IC argument that things are just too complicated to be explained with a stepwise depiction of mutations fails dramatically.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    657
    Are you saying that if a system did function it would be selected for?

    A system's improved function is always what is selected for, it's function cannot be selected for without function.

    I say that since my second fallacy is a fallacy it is not happening in a lab and cannot happen in a lab.

    If you want to deny this come out and say it.
    A system cannot be selected for before it exists. Evolution does not know how to put pieces together to get some result. There is no intelligence driving it. The function of that system however is needed before it exists. There are probably billions of different systems that could result in a single function. Therefore evolution selects based on function, not the system itself. The way this function first arises is by chance alone, but this does not have to be far fetched as you would depict it. You said earlier that functions cannot change. This is shown incorrect. You said that a system cannot appear by chance alone but what you miss here is that a system need not appear at once. The function can arise, improve and then streamline into what you call IC.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You don't seem to get what Miller did here at all.
    At most he commented, at worst he hijacked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    A brand new system evolved to break down lactic acid! Further, the way the bacteria did this conforms to your and Behe's IC. Before the experiment, none of the bacteria could do this. After some time, they could. Wow! Evolution! What do you think it is? Is this not natural selection?
    Your facts are incorrect, I have stated the explanation I cannot force you to accept what is clearly in evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    It is, because the selection mechanism is only concerned with one thing: survival.
    You have ignored what I have said, I insist you respond to it before any more of this disguised rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Your next claim will likely be, "well none of the bacteria would have survived if Miller had not supplied them with necessary nutrients that before the mechanism evolved, the bacteria could not produce on their own."
    What? Miller supplied nothing, he wrote an book....

    If you want to make a point make it without a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    But you will likely ignore that this is not even relevant. Bottom line is, a selection based on survival, even if you don't call it NS, resulted in a three part system to improve the viability of the bacteria and any of these three parts if removed cause the function of the system to cease. The system was not there before, now it is.
    The function was there before and it is now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You can't refute this.
    I can it was easy, what parts of the system that were not artificially provided had functionality in the unmutated bacteria.

    This is amounting to a large strawman, as I never said a system could not be improved by NS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    These are facts and your little IC argument that things are just too complicated to be explained with a stepwise depiction of mutations fails dramatically.
    You can't be this intellectually depraved, I am calling you a liar.

    You know you have not addressed my rebuttals to your attacks of IC, you know that my argument is not just "things are too complicated"

    I think you are consciously avoiding my arguements and that as such claiming they fail dramatically is directly dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    A system cannot be selected for before it exists. Evolution does not know how to put pieces together to get some result.
    I know
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    There is no intelligence driving it.
    Not as the theory stands
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    The function of that system however is needed before it exists.
    Meaning what? Complete your thought, why would need for favorable function that does not exist effect evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    There are probably billions of different systems that could result in a single function.
    In some cases maybe, I don't know. Certainly more than one in the vast majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Therefore evolution selects based on function, not the system itself.
    I know
    The way this function first arises is by chance alone
    Thank you! You could have saved alot of my typing and your rhetoric had you admitted this sooner. I knew this was a premise of your statements and pointed it out several times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    but this does not have to be far fetched as you would depict it.
    Arguement from credulity?
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You said earlier that functions cannot change.
    Strawman
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You said that a system cannot appear by chance alone
    Strawman
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    but what you miss here is that a system need not appear at once. The function can arise, improve and then streamline into what you call IC.
    The function must arise at once, I have never claimed anything else.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Your next claim will likely be, "well none of the bacteria would have survived if Miller had not supplied them with necessary nutrients that before the mechanism evolved, the bacteria could not produce on their own."
    I honestly haven't read any of the following posts. A typical creationist would claim that this isn't evolution because they are still bacteria. Or at least some equivalent argument.
    From The Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11, negociated under Washington, passed unanimously by the senate, and signed by Adams -- "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    It seems a ridiculous thing to have to ask but it is the question that you have not been able to answer without one of these fallacies:

    1. You have claimed that systems can change function
    2. You have implied that systems do not have to be selected for because mutation may cause them to appear by chance.
    [I]


    You said earlier that functions cannot change.
    Strawman
    Quote:

    You said that a system cannot appear by chance alone
    Strawman
    The excerpts speak for themselves. You can deny you said this but here it is for you to see. I guess for you seeing is rarely believing.

    The way this function first arises is by chance alone
    Thank you! You could have saved alot of my typing and your rhetoric had you admitted this sooner. I knew this was a premise of your statements and pointed it out several times.
    BTW, there is a difference between system and function. Notice I said function here, not system. I don't believe I ever said that an entire system appears by chance alone, only the initial function. I have always stated that a function appears and then the peripheral system is altered to improve and streamline the function. You are the one basing your argument on the strawman that I claim an entire system appears fully formed with a single mutation. So what is it Freedom, can functions change or not? And if it can, is that not a function arising out of chance?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by pandion View Post
    I honestly haven't read any of the following posts. A typical creationist would claim that this isn't evolution because they are still bacteria. Or at least some equivalent argument.
    True, their definition of evolution is shrinking all the time to encompass less and less as soon as the mechanisms are proven. Some will even claim that since we have never seen new legs form or fish suddenly start flying that this is proof evolution is false. However, we have seen mutations cause entire appendages form. Then they claim, "Well this isn't good enough because the genetic code wasn't written from scratch." Now we have genetic code in bacteria written from scratch, or mutated from entirely unrelated genes, and this still isn't enough. I am being accused of strawman arguments for simply quoting what Freedom has said quite literally. If I can't attack what a creationist says, what do I have left? This becomes even more difficult since Freedom has obviously changed his stance on the issue of systems changing function. In one instant functions can't change,and now apparently they can. But this isn't evolution!

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You said earlier that functions cannot change.
    I did not, read my posts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You said that a system cannot appear by chance alone
    I did not, read my posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    The excerpts speak for themselves. You can deny you said this but here it is for you to see. I guess for you seeing is rarely believing.
    As does the rest of the post and the several paragraphs devoted to each of the two fallacies I mentioned.


    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    BTW, there is a difference between system and function.
    Not a relavent one, the system determines function. A system cannot change function without changing itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Notice I said function here, not system. I don't believe I ever said that an entire system appears by chance alone, only the initial function.
    So when I pointed out that you could just appeal to chance and end the argument why didn't you do it?

    For dozens of posts you went head to head with with me and you want me to believe that during that entire time you didn't understand what I was saying?

    Perhaps that is somewhat understandable as it would explain why none of your posts actually responded to what I was saying until now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    I have always stated that a function appears and then the peripheral system is altered to improve and streamline the function.
    It appeared to me as if you always contended that the function evolves by Darwinian processes prior to it's existance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You are the one basing your argument on the strawman that I claim an entire system appears fully formed with a single mutation.
    No that the function is formed with the equivalent of a single mutation. If the system is IC even initial function may be complex.

    I don't buy this about you always saying that, I was far to clear, especially in my large post in this thread to have mistaken my position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    So what is it Freedom, can functions change or not? And if it can, is that not a function arising out of chance?
    Functions could conceivably change, systems could adapt, functions could form from pure chance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •