Why Evolution is True

PZ,

I agree that Coyne and Orr's Speciation book is a tough read, but as textbooks go, it is definitely one of the better written ones.

(or, if you do, you could always get Speciation to get a little more depth).

When something evolves, does it evolve one atom, one molecule, or a group of molecules at a time? Where do the molecules come from?

Just curious.

Hi, bobby.

novparl said: Just curious.

novparl said: When something evolves, does it evolve one atom, one molecule, or a group of molecules at a time? Where do the molecules come from? Just curious.

I think it would be fun for PT to collaborate on a
deadpan Darwin-bashing review of this book and then send
it to
UNCOMMON DESCENT. "It's not like we don't see you folks
coming." I could probably write a better hatchet job than
they could. Maybe I will when I get my hands on it.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Henry J said: That amount of depth would probably go way over my head... :p

novparl said: When something evolves, does it evolve one atom, one molecule, or a group of molecules at a time? Where do the molecules come from? Just curious.

iml8 said: I think it would be fun for PT to collaborate on a deadpan Darwin-bashing review of this book and then send it to UNCOMMON DESCENT. "It's not like we don't see you folks coming." I could probably write a better hatchet job than they could. Maybe I will when I get my hands on it. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Dale Husband said: OK, do you have a legitimate question?

Is it just me, or did "novparl" post the same drive-by comment in at least one other previous thread, then disappear without a trace? DNFTT!!

iml8 said: "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Can't think of any more for the moment. Help would be appreciated.

PvM: 'While it is good that chickens are crossing roads, it is always helpful to remember the words of St Augustine...'

Colonel Sanders: "I missed one?"

LOL :) Been watching yo'all yell at brick walls for some time now. Haven't laughed this hard since the first of the flatfish post! Have fun. Keep up the good work.

John Ostrom: "That's really just a highly modified dinosaur crossing the road."

Charles Darwin: "To propose that the chicken, with all
its inimitable contrivances, could cross the road seems,
I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

T.H. Huxley: "I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for
the chicken!"

Gregor Mendel: "It came across and got into my pea plants."

Casey Luskin: "The failure to properly define the term
'road' is a fatal flaw that renders the argument
fallacious."

J.B.S Haldane: "Evolution could be disproved by the
presence of chickens in the PreCambrian."

Phillip Johnson: "The issue cannot be assessed in an
impartial fashion as long as scientific materialism
remains the established dogma."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Are these two Coynes (Jerry and George, not Tom) worth more that 10cents - a paradigms

Michael Roberts said: ... a paradigms

Why evolution isn't true:

1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared “long before” in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:

“Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers …
The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability…
'It had the tools,' he said, 'but it needed the opportunity as well.'”
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/new_genetic_data_
overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development

“A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development … Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive.”
http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/nauka-rel/universal_genome.htm

“Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response … Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons.”
http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/nauka-rel/universal_genome.htm

“Despite being developmentally simple–with no organs or many specialized cells–the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. “Many genes viewed as having particular ‘functions’ in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,” says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C.”
http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E2%80%98simple%E2%80%99-animal%
E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html

2. For the fossil 'evidence' ruse created by evolutionary 'science,' go to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fossil_evidence.html

Evolution predicts that all of you will cry,
"quote-mining" "straw man" and the new buzz word, "trolling"!

Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning...

Why evolution isn’t true:

1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared “long before” in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:

“Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers … The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability… ‘It had the tools,’ he said, ‘but it needed the opportunity as well.’” http://www.scientificblogging.com/n[…]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development

“A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development … Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[…]l_genome.htm

“Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response … Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[…]l_genome.htm

“Despite being developmentally simple–with no organs or many specialized cells–the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. “Many genes viewed as having particular ‘functions’ in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,” says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C.” http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E[…]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com[…]descent.html

2. For the fossil ‘evidence’ ruse created by evolutionary ‘science,’ go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos[…]vidence.html

Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, “quote-mining” “straw man” and the new buzz word, “trolling”!

Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning…

Of course if the genes needed for future evolutionary developments were lacking in progenitor species (and thus in less modified descendents of those progenitors), the IDists would be saying "see, an intelligence had to step in."

Find the genes necessary for gradual evolution, and the same people unintelligently conclude that the needed genes were functionless in the progenitors and the result of front-loading.

IOW, they're just intent on blasting away at evolution no matter how well it explains and fits the evidence. And they never once come up with any sort of design explanation for anything at all, only denials conjured up to save the long-lost "hypothesis".

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

"The idea that the chicken crossed the road is clearly
not supported by the evidence ... "

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

From his website:

"Examine for yourself what is more scientific -
The Theory of Evolution or the Genesis Account of Creation?"

But my opinion is that his post is off-topic - to the bathroom wall with it! Not to mention don't feed the troll!

Who is Your Creator,

No whining at all, instead I pose my usual query to you:

There are about SEVENTEEN MILLION individual peer-reviewed scientific papers indexed at the National Library of Medicine's online public database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/). Not a single paper refutes evolution, and not a single paper provides data in support of intelligent design or traditional creationism. What is the reason for this?

1. ID/Creationism is based on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation, and thus is not science
2. There is a vast global conspiracy that has prevented even a single piece of data supporting ID/Creationism from being published in peer-reviewed scientific literature
3. ID/Creationism proponents are utterly incompetent at performing scientific research

Ben Stein: "The chicken's crossing of the road was an
event that led inevitably to the Holocaust."

Genie Scott: "To maintain its tax-exempt status."

P.Z. Myers: "I don't know about chickens, but if it had
been a cephalopod ... "

Judge John Jones III: "The attempt to show that chickens
could not cross the road was an exercise in breathtaking
inanity and a waste of personal and monetary resources."

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck: "It crossed the road in its
efforts to become a superior chicken."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

who is your creator keeps polluting these threads with his debunked claims.

What a fool

Handjobby: "How much information is conveyed by the chicken crossing the road?"

Keith Eaton: "If any of you evolanders had half the understanding of chickshit that I do, you'd know why the turdeating chicken crossed the materialist road".

FL: "The Bible does not say the chicken crossed the road"

Paul Nelson: "Let me research that and I'll get back to you with an answer"

Winston Churchill: "Some chicken! Some road!"

Berlinsky: "Mathematically, it's impossible for a chicken to cross a road. No chicken genome has ever demonstrated any sign of any road."

Jonathan Wells: "Kettlewell never tested chicken predation on peppered moths. Therefore, peppered moths don't exist, and can't have evolved."

iml8 said:

Dale Husband said: OK, do you have a legitimate question?

"Why did the chicken cross the road?" Let's see: Ken Ham: "Did you see it?" Michael Behe: "The chicken was irreducibly complex and so could not have crossed the road without help from a Designer." William Dembski: "I don't have to connect your pathetic chicken tracks." Henry Morris: "Chicken tracks have been found alongside dinosaur footprints." Richard Dawkins: "The chicken is merely a survival machine for its genes, and the actions it takes are to ensure the successful propagation of those genes." Can't think of any more for the moment. Help would be appreciated. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

novparl said: When something evolves, does it evolve one atom, one molecule, or a group of molecules at a time? Where do the molecules come from? Just curious.

Reverend Paley: "If we came upon a chicken crossing the
road, would it not suggest the work of a higher power
in its actions?"

Steve Pinker: "We may understand the motives of the chicken
better if we approach its behavior from an evolutionary
perspective."

Denyse O'Leary: "The whole attempt to promote the
fable of the chicken and the road is just
another ploy by the fraud that calls itself evolutionary
science."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Karen S. said: Pretty soon PT will have enough material for its own Chick Tract!

Answers in Genesis: There were chickens in the Garden of Eden, and there was a pair of chickens on Noah's Ark. Road? What road?

• Plato: For the greater good.
• Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.
• Douglas Adams: Forty-two.
• Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.
• Buddha: If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-nature.
• Ernest Hemingway: To die. In the rain.

who is your creator said: Your thoery [sic] would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning [sic]…

Kent Hovind: (unending stream of disconnected gibberish)

I rather suspect that who-is-you-creator had tongue firmly in cheeck when he tried to make this exact joke, but forgetting the "Kent:" before he disappeared

iml8 said: (snip) Denyse O'Leary: "The whole attempt to promote the fable of the chicken and the road is just another ploy by the fraud that calls itself evolutionary science." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

James D. Watson: "Because some n***** was chasing it."

Mr. Spock: "Obviously it was the logical thing to do."

Colonel Sanders: “I missed one?”

That aside, if birds including chickens are dinosaurs, then when antievolutionists claim that people and dinosaurs coexisted, are they wrong? ;)

Or is that a case of "I do not think that word means what you think it means"? :p

Henry

You might regard it as a false monochotomy, Henry. It's only in hillbilly folk songs that you can be your own grandfather.

Henry J said: That aside, if birds including chickens are dinosaurs, then when antievolutionists claim that people and dinosaurs coexisted, are they wrong? ;) Or is that a case of "I do not think that word means what you think it means"? :p Henry

who is your creator said: Why evolution isn’t true: 1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared “long before” in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier: “Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers … The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability… ‘It had the tools,’ he said, ‘but it needed the opportunity as well.’” http://www.scientificblogging.com/n[…]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development “A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development … Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[…]l_genome.htm “Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response … Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n[…]l_genome.htm “Despite being developmentally simple–with no organs or many specialized cells–the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. “Many genes viewed as having particular ‘functions’ in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,” says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C.” http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E[…]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/ http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com[…]descent.html 2. For the fossil ‘evidence’ ruse created by evolutionary ‘science,’ go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos[…]vidence.html Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, “quote-mining” “straw man” and the new buzz word, “trolling”! Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning…

The chicken was trying to avoid being caught, cooked, and eaten by me!

Who is your creator needs to stopped beating a dead horse.

I have a couple of questions that have been bugging me for quite some time. If we supposedly evolved from apes, how come the ape species still exists? Are there other examples of a species that co-exists with species it supposedly evolved from?

Yes, Shane, PIGMIES + DWARFS.

"If we supposedly evolved from apes, how come the ape species still exists?"

Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans evolved from a common ancestor shared by modern apes and modern humans. There is no evidence that such an ancestor exists today.

@Shane: when you were born, did all of your cousins drop dead? No? Then you know how it's possible for humans and chimps to exist.

It's innaccurate to say that humans "evolved from apes" anyway; we ARE a kind of ape, sharing common ancestry with all the other apes at various degrees of closeness. But when you look at any other ape, you're not seeing an ancestor, you're seeing a distant cousin.

Can’t think of any more for the moment. Help would be appreciated.

— iml8

Shane Harris: We did not evolve from any of the current apes. They and we evolved from common ancestors. Those ancestors were members of a species different from both modern humans and modern apes. We, and the modern apes, are their very distant progeny, with different traits that are the result of natural selection and genetic drift in diverging directions. The same statements are true of any two modern species, with the divergence points being found further and further in the past as the species become more and more different.

No doubt the real zoologists and botanists here will correct me, but I believe it is rather rare for an ancestor species and its speciated descendents to co-exist side by side. Human beings certainly do not exist with our ancestor species. The ancestor species to ourselves and to our nearest "cousins" - the chimpanzees - is extinct. So are a number of other species closer to us than any of the apes - the various Australopithecines, of which A. Afarensis is possibly the best candidate for direct ancestry, and all the earlier species of hominids.

Shane Harris said: I have a couple of questions that have been bugging me for quite some time. If we supposedly evolved from apes, how come the ape species still exists? Are there other examples of a species that co-exists with species it supposedly evolved from?

Dale Husband said: The chicken was trying to avoid being caught, cooked, and eaten by me! Who is your creator needs to stopped beating a dead horse.

Why Evolution is True...still acknowledges where common misconceptions occur and where creationist PR, such as the Intelligent Design creationism fad, has raised stock objections.

— PZ Myers

Science Avenger said: Handjobby: "How much information is conveyed by the chicken crossing the road?"

who is your creator said: Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, "quote-mining" "straw man" and the new buzz word, "trolling"!

Frontloading proponent: 'The chicken did not cross the road... it lost the information required not to cross roads'

If the chicken came over to our side of the road, then
why are there still chickens on the other side of the road?

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

DaveScot: "I worked at Dell. I worked extensively on chicken/cafeteria projects."

Robin said: LOL! Personally, I think he'd say something more like, "I firmly believe that since chickens have only 750MB of storage space in their DNA, do not have enough information to cross roads!"

Dr Gene Ray:

ROAD HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4 DAY TIME CHICKEN

Greenwich Mean Time divides road into opposite halves by a queer god who does not comprehend that a 4 corner chicken spreads AIDS

LINE ROAD IS A LIE OF ONEISM AS SURE AS -1 x -1 = -1

Let's date oursevles.

Jo Anne Worley: "Is that another chicken joke?!"

Mike said: Let's date oursevles. Jo Anne Worley: "Is that another chicken joke?!"

Damn. I should've added, "The chicken is no longer with us." to the end of my DaveScot =(.

Jack Chick:

[Insert wierd cartoon about little Susan being taken in by evil road-crossing chicken-believers, and then asking her priest about it] Susan - "You mean if I believe the chicken crossed the road, I'll go to hell?" Priest - "That's right Susan. The bible says there is only one way to cross the road, through Jesus. Read your bible and pray, and you will be able to cross the road too!"

Stephen Wells said: It's innaccurate to say that humans "evolved from apes" anyway; we ARE a kind of ape, sharing common ancestry with all the other apes at various degrees of closeness.

who is your creator: The chicken can't cross the road. The complexity of the road can only increase by adding chickens. Arriving at the other side and stepping off the road would decrease the complexity of the road and road theory doesn't allow that. QED

Why did the chicken cross the road:

S. J. Gould: "The movement of chickens may be purposeless. Given any large number of chickens all starting on one side of the road, then it is clear that random motion of chickens will result in an increasing number of chickens crossing the road over time."

I EVOLVED FROM APELIKE ANCESTORS AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS CRUMMY T-SHIRT.

'Why did the chicken cross the road?'
The evolutionary biologist would gather information, painstakingly test, retest, and peer-revue data. He would not be swayed by faith, or belief systems. She would not fall prey to political angst, and culture war rhetoric, and would come to the evidence supported conclusion: 'to get to the other side'.

Random fundie: "If the chicken crossed the road, why are there still roads?"

Homer Simpson: "Mmmmmm... chicken..." (Sorry. Had to.)

PvM (2): "The theory that the chicken walked across the road is compatible with the belief that it magically levitated across the road. To challenge this would be harsh".

chuck said: who is your creator: The chicken can't cross the road. The complexity of the road can only increase by adding chickens. Arriving at the other side and stepping off the road would decrease the complexity of the road and road theory doesn't allow that. QED

In regard to the comment from SLPAGE above:

"So, your position is that a structure, according to evolution, must start out as a nub, then in successive generations get bogger and bigger?
When you flip a light switch, does the light go from very dim to very bright over the course of several minutes, or does it just turn on?"

You have an interesting belief system ...

Since you don't believe that incremental changes build new features, why don't you give us your detailed explanation of how 'nature' builds something entirely new without progressive change.
You might want to refer to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html

who is your creator said: Since you don't believe that incremental changes build new features, why don't you give us your detailed explanation of how 'nature' builds something entirely new without progressive change. You might want to refer to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html

In regard to eric's comment:

"Whois, you entirely missed slpage’s point. As well as missing modern biology in general. Mutation causes small incremental genetic changes. It does not (necessarily) cause small incremental structural changes - sometimes these can be sudden and huge, like the growth of an additional limb.
You are mistaking the cake for the recipe."

1. You MUST be more scientific than a "cake for the recipe" explanation. Why don't you give us the "sudden and huge" step-by-step scenario of the first three mutations that would cause the limb to instantly appear?

2. If no structural changes occur, then natural selection must act upon genetic superiority only. Explain in detail what would make that organism superior, especially in light of this new research:

"Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego have shown for the first time that a genetic malfunction found in marine crustaceans called copepods likely explains why populations of animals that diverge and eventually reconnect produce weak "hybrid" offspring.
Hybrid animals result when populations of a given species separate from one another, undergoing genetic mutations while apart and eventually reestablish ties and interbreed. Hybrids often suffer from lower fertility levels, slower development and higher rates of mortality due to environmental causes ...
Ellison and Burton found that hybrids were incapable of turning on the required genes, and traced this "gene regulation" malfunction to mitochondria, the location inside cells where energy is generated. They further pinned the problem area to a single enzyme, called "RNA polymerase," for the failed trigger.
"In hybrids we found that these genes don't turn on in response to stress, which means the animals don't have enough energy, and that leads to low survivorship," said Burton."
http://www.physorg.com/news143193909.html

1. You MUST be more scientific than a “cake for the recipe” explanation.

Werner Heisenberg: The chicken exists in a state of both having crossed the road and not having crossed the road. David

Surely, but that Heisenberg guy had that uncertainty just as a matter of principle.

who is your creator said: Why don't you give us the "sudden and huge" step-by-step scenario of the first three mutations that would cause the limb to instantly appear?

David Grow said: Werner Heisenberg: The chicken exists in a state of both having crossed the road and not having crossed the road. David

Period instead of comma? I thought it was a metric vs. English unit mix up? Incorrect punctuation in a program would usually be caught by the compiler.

Henry

wiyc: having seen your abysmal site, I know you won't get this, but for the benefit of lurkers:

suppose we have an organism, and a genetic code in which the letter A means 'bud out in one direction', the letter B means 'go back by one instruction'.

Then suppose we have a gene with the instruction AAA. This obviously causes the organism to bud out three times.

Now suppose a mutation makes this AAB. This will cause it to bud out twice, and then keep budding ad infinitum in a runaway, cancer-like growth, which will stop when the organism runs out of resources to keep growing. (note: this is probably not a good way to grow, but real life has better ways of doing it)

In one single mutation you'll have gone from a tiny nub to a long tendril, and that's with the simplest of instructions. Now add in all the other operations, and the junk that the organism may have in its DNA (eg. if the mutation had caused it to be ABA, you'd still have the same effect, but now that final A isn't doing anything; it's junk, and it could easily become C or D or kappa), and it's easy to see that even small mutations can have large effects.

This doesn't mean a whole fully-formed limb can spring out of nowhere, but it gives it a place to begin.

And of course, this kind of formation leaves predictable evidence behind, which has been found, but hey, wiyc can add that to the list of stuff he doesn't understand or is avoiding.

who is your creator said: 2. If no structural changes occur, then natural selection must act upon genetic superiority only. Explain in detail what would make that organism superior, especially in light of this new research: "Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego have shown for the first time that a genetic malfunction found in marine crustaceans called copepods likely explains why populations of animals that diverge and eventually reconnect produce weak "hybrid" offspring. Hybrid animals result when populations of a given species separate from one another, undergoing genetic mutations while apart and eventually reestablish ties and interbreed. Hybrids often suffer from lower fertility levels, slower development and higher rates of mortality due to environmental causes ... Ellison and Burton found that hybrids were incapable of turning on the required genes, and traced this "gene regulation" malfunction to mitochondria, the location inside cells where energy is generated. They further pinned the problem area to a single enzyme, called "RNA polymerase," for the failed trigger. "In hybrids we found that these genes don't turn on in response to stress, which means the animals don't have enough energy, and that leads to low survivorship," said Burton." http://www.physorg.com/news143193909.html

I find it incredibly odd that who is your creator would throw that at us, since it seems to do more damage to the credibility of creationism than to evolution. Think about it.…

Henry J said: Period instead of comma? I thought it was a metric vs. English unit mix up? Incorrect punctuation in a program would usually be caught by the compiler. Henry

DO 10 I=1,10

DO 10 I=1.10

In regard to VenusMousetrap comment:

"Now suppose a mutation makes this AAB. This will cause it to bud out twice, and then keep budding ad infinitum in a runaway, cancer-like growth, which will stop when the organism runs out of resources to keep growing. (note: this is probably not a good way to grow, but real life has better ways of doing it)"

1. Why don't we see all sorts of 'buds' (or whatever) forming in isolated populations? Did evolution stop?
2. Do you believe that these 'buds' are already functional ‘as is’? If yes, explain why. If no, explain why natural selection would determine that the organisms with these 'buds' are more fit instead of less fit.
3. In regard to a “runaway, cancer-like growth,” increased accumulations of mutations don’t produce function and complexity. They are typically repaired or cell death occurs:
“But the mechanisms of DNA replication and repair are so accurate that even where no such selection operates – at the many sites in the DNA where a change of nucleotide has no effect on the fitness of the organism – the genetic message is faithfully preserved over tens of millions of years.”
“Essential Cell Biology” textbook, Second Edition, Section 6:20, 2003 Garland Science
“DNA is a fragile molecule that undergoes dramatic changes when exposed to radiation, ultraviolet light, toxic chemicals or byproducts of normal cellular processes. DNA damage, if not repaired in time, may lead to mutations, cancer or cell death. Many helicases in the Rad3 family are key players in the cell’s elaborate machinery to prevent and repair such damage.”
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=12256890
4. Contrary to your ‘directional’ mutation hypothesis, mutations are random (Note that this is from your mouthpiece "NCSE"):
“Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be …
Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct.
Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue.
In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07
Also, go to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/mutations.html

In regard to your other comment:

“In one single mutation you'll have gone from a tiny nub to a long tendril, and that's with the simplest of instructions.
Now add in all the other operations, and the junk that the organism may have in its DNA (eg. if the mutation had caused it to be ABA, you'd still have the same effect, but now that final A isn't doing anything; it's junk, and it could easily become C or D or kappa), and it's easy to see that even small mutations can have large effects.”

1. Since you are pointing to gene duplication where DNA is supposedly (and miraculously) replaced with a new sequence that never had existed before, cite proof that this process EVER produced such a profound change in appearance (“a long tendril”).
2. Please explain in detail how the DNA of “all the other operations” got dumped and exactly how the new gene was able to recode the molecular switch that regulated the previous gene?

Dale Husband said: I find it incredibly odd that who is your creator would throw that at us, since it seems to do more damage to the credibility of creationism than to evolution. Think about it....

Henry J said: Period instead of comma? I thought it was a metric vs. English unit mix up? Incorrect punctuation in a program would usually be caught by the compiler. Henry

eric said: I thought it was odd too.

Wow, weird. The sorts of things that Intelligent Design and creationist folks usually like to falsely imply, like preloading, or some sort of "will" on behalf of either a creator or the creature itself, is quoted as being false by WIYC... and as evidence for a creator anyhow! If there were only two possible explanations for everything, the tautology would now be complete.

Way to overreact to a simplistic genetic metaphor as well :)

I must say I don't understand the request for this "3 mutations". I've seen this question asked before, so somebody must be sharing it about. It's a weird question to ask. Genes interact in a chemical network, and it's a bit beyond us just yet to completely simulate an organism and its chemistry.

We can take a look at creatures in which it has happened and find out how it happened in that particular instance (e.g. Lakshmi). There's a lot of different ways in which an effect can happen - a mutation in a homeobox gene or markers for histone acetlyation, an overactive gene promoter for the chemotaxic substances that attract growth of the limb buds, a mutated silencer, some trouble with the chemical chain for apoptosis, a feedback loop that does not diminish...

So where in particular should I swap out a base pair to get an aspartic acid instead of a glutamic acid again?

who is your creator said: increased accumulations of mutations don’t produce function and complexity.

4. Contrary to your ‘directional’ mutation hypothesis, mutations are random

iml8 said: Eric, you're still reading WIYC's stuff? At least when Pinky said things, they were entertaining even if they didn't make any sense. "NARF!" White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

In regard to your comment:
“I thought it was odd too. I think he was trying to argue that natural selection can’t work on a genetic change that causes no change in development, and demanding I show how it does. But AFAIK no one disputes this - I certainly didn’t. And it has nothing to do with my post, so I don’t know why he brought it up.”

We were specifically referring to the hypothetical mutational development of the physical appearance of ‘buds’ (in reference to the claim of “in one single mutation you’ll have gone from a tiny nub to a long tendril“).
If a small ‘bud’ arises, why would natural selection preserve the change so that those populations with it survive at a higher rate?
I would think that it would be a very simple question for you guys.

In reference to the other comment:
“Either that or he was attempting to refute my point about how sometimes small genetic changes lead to large developmental changes by giving one case where they didn’t. But that logic is just silly, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn’t mean it that way.”

No, instead of citing one case that didn’t, we are asking for ONE case that did (refer to the above).
Yes, we know it’s silly to ask for evidence, but we’ll keep asking.

This is enough entertainment for me for the day. Thank you, all!

who is your creator said: In regard to VenusMousetrap comment: "Now suppose a mutation makes this AAB. This will cause it to bud out twice, and then keep budding ad infinitum in a runaway, cancer-like growth, which will stop when the organism runs out of resources to keep growing. (note: this is probably not a good way to grow, but real life has better ways of doing it)" 1. Why don't we see all sorts of 'buds' (or whatever) forming in isolated populations? Did evolution stop?

2. Do you believe that these 'buds' are already functional ‘as is’? If yes, explain why. If no, explain why natural selection would determine that the organisms with these 'buds' are more fit instead of less fit.

3. In regard to a “runaway, cancer-like growth,” increased accumulations of mutations don’t produce function and complexity. They are typically repaired or cell death occurs: “But the mechanisms of DNA replication and repair are so accurate that even where no such selection operates – at the many sites in the DNA where a change of nucleotide has no effect on the fitness of the organism – the genetic message is faithfully preserved over tens of millions of years.” “Essential Cell Biology” textbook, Second Edition, Section 6:20, 2003 Garland Science “DNA is a fragile molecule that undergoes dramatic changes when exposed to radiation, ultraviolet light, toxic chemicals or byproducts of normal cellular processes. DNA damage, if not repaired in time, may lead to mutations, cancer or cell death. Many helicases in the Rad3 family are key players in the cell’s elaborate machinery to prevent and repair such damage.” http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=12256890

4. Contrary to your ‘directional’ mutation hypothesis, mutations are random (Note that this is from your mouthpiece "NCSE"): “Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be … Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation relying on non-random mutation, is not correct. Researchers have performed many experiments in this area. Though results can be interpreted in several ways, none unambiguously support directed mutation. Nevertheless, scientists are still doing research that provides evidence relevant to this issue. In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07 Also, go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/mutations.html

In regard to your other comment: “In one single mutation you'll have gone from a tiny nub to a long tendril, and that's with the simplest of instructions. Now add in all the other operations, and the junk that the organism may have in its DNA (eg. if the mutation had caused it to be ABA, you'd still have the same effect, but now that final A isn't doing anything; it's junk, and it could easily become C or D or kappa), and it's easy to see that even small mutations can have large effects.” 1. Since you are pointing to gene duplication where DNA is supposedly (and miraculously) replaced with a new sequence that never had existed before, cite proof that this process EVER produced such a profound change in appearance (“a long tendril”).

2. Please explain in detail how the DNA of “all the other operations” got dumped and exactly how the new gene was able to recode the molecular switch that regulated the previous gene?

who is your creator said: If a small ‘bud’ arises, why would natural selection preserve the change so that those populations with it survive at a higher rate? I would think that it would be a very simple question for you guys.

who is your creator said: Ellison and Burton found that hybrids were incapable of turning on the required genes, and traced this "gene regulation" malfunction to mitochondria, the location inside cells where energy is generated. They further pinned the problem area to a single enzyme, called "RNA polymerase," for the failed trigger. "In hybrids we found that these genes don't turn on in response to stress, which means the animals don't have enough energy, and that leads to low survivorship," said Burton." http://www.physorg.com/news143193909.html

@ GvlGeologist to me "liar". Spoken like a true gentleman of science.

@Dale Husband. "Do you have a legitimate question?" Yep. But you don't have any answers.

@ Eric "You eat, don't you?" Yep.

@ Bill Gascoyne. Correct, I asked the question on another thread but nobody answered it.

@ Who is your Creator. I see you're used to abuse from emotionalists/evolutionists and don't turn a hair. Wonder why natural selection hasn't selected from unemotional people? They make better decisions. Good luck anyway.

novparl said: @ Who is your Creator. I see you're used to abuse from emotionalists/evolutionists and don't turn a hair. Wonder why natural selection hasn't selected from unemotional people? They make better decisions. Good luck anyway.

who is your creator said: No, instead of citing one case that didn’t, we are asking for ONE case that did (refer to the above). Yes, we know it’s silly to ask for evidence, but we’ll keep asking. This is enough entertainment for me for the day. Thank you, all!

eric said:

who is your creator said: increased accumulations of mutations don’t produce function and complexity.

What, never? Or hardly ever? Here's three strings. Two have been mutated from the original. You tell me which one is more functional and complex, and why. atgagtaaag gagaagaact tttcactgga gtggtcccag ttcttgttga attagatggc atgatgaaag gagaagaact tttcactgga gtggtcccag ttcttgttga attagatggc gtgagtaaag gagaagaact tttcactgga gtggtcccag ttcttgttga attagatggc

4. Contrary to your ‘directional’ mutation hypothesis, mutations are random

No one claimed directional mutation. You seem to be making up positions to argue against.

who is your creator is who jobby wants to be when he grows up.

@ Chuck

I never went to college.

If I had, I wouldn't have done biology.

To expect someone to somehow come across Yerkes-Dodson (their opinion, not fact) is unreasonable.

Surely "freshman" is sexist? I'm sure evolutionist/emotionalists are politikally korrekt? You don't dare argue with feminists, who are basically saying evo' got it wrong.

Have a nice day.

novparl said: @ Chuck I never went to college. If I had, I wouldn't have done biology. To expect someone to somehow come across Yerkes-Dodson (their opinion, not fact) is unreasonable. Surely "freshman" is sexist? I'm sure evolutionist/emotionalists are politikally korrekt? You don't dare argue with feminists, who are basically saying evo' got it wrong. Have a nice day.

who is your creator said: In regard to eric's comment: "Whois, you entirely missed slpage’s point. As well as missing modern biology in general. Mutation causes small incremental genetic changes. It does not (necessarily) cause small incremental structural changes - sometimes these can be sudden and huge, like the growth of an additional limb. You are mistaking the cake for the recipe." 1. You MUST be more scientific than a "cake for the recipe" explanation.

novparl said: @ GvlGeologist to me "liar". Spoken like a true gentleman of science.

When something evolves, does it evolve one atom, one molecule, or a group of molecules at a time? Where do the molecules come from? Just curious.

novparl said: You don't dare argue with feminists, who are basically saying evo' got it wrong. Have a nice day.

novparl said: You don't dare argue with feminists, who are basically saying evo' got it wrong. Have a nice day.

novparl said: @ Chuck I never went to college. If I had, I wouldn't have done biology. To expect someone to somehow come across Yerkes-Dodson (their opinion, not fact) is unreasonable. Surely "freshman" is sexist? I'm sure evolutionist/emotionalists are politikally korrekt? You don't dare argue with feminists, who are basically saying evo' got it wrong. Have a nice day.

Dale Husband said:

novparl said: @ Chuck I never went to college. If I had, I wouldn't have done biology. To expect someone to somehow come across Yerkes-Dodson (their opinion, not fact) is unreasonable. Surely "freshman" is sexist? I'm sure evolutionist/emotionalists are politikally korrekt? You don't dare argue with feminists, who are basically saying evo' got it wrong. Have a nice day.

Well, at least he is honest about his stupidity, so one point for that. Next!

I've looked for the answer, it's not there. Why not just give me one of these thousands of references? (I bet they'll be irrelevant).

Oh, and the delicious irony of this site being named after the book by the eminently civilized & tolerant SJ Gould. A gentleman who dares to say he admires Ussher for his scholarship in working out the 4004 BC thing. (Relax. I too believe the earth is c. 4,5 billion years old.)

Now I'll sit back and look forward to the desperate bellows of rage. (so much anger - bad for the digestion, chaps)

I admire the scholarship in Bishop Ussher's work as well. So? I suggest you go take a creative writing course so that biologists will be able to take meaning from your criticisms. right now they resemble the ramblings of a drunken bum who's emptied his last bottle.

novparl said: I've looked for the answer, it's not there. Why not just give me one of these thousands of references? (I bet they'll be irrelevant).

cobby said: Of course evolution is true.

@ stanton

I would gladly look at these studies if someone wd point a few out.

A troll. A word used by intolerant people made angry by debate (unlike Mr Gould).

A "subpar high school education". What a snob.

Btw, yes I do want women in the kitchen, to lose the vote, and to be spared their rants which are even more hysterical than those of evolutionists (except for a minority like Gould).

Oh dear I've made you REALLY angry. See ya.

"Shut up and go away." They said that to Darwin, in more academic language. Sadly, he didn't.

For a bloke who claims to be infallible, it's funny you can't spell masturbation.

NOVPARL said: "Shut up and go away." They said that to Darwin, in more academic language.

cobby said: Of course evolution is true. Allelles change everyday in plants and animals. Darwinism however has little validation.

(sigh)

Anyway, thanks for the pointer to the book, PZ, I'll be looking for it in my local library in 2009. Failing that I may ask the book store to order it for me. Cheers.

cobby said: Censorship is not science!

cobby said: ...they have few answers. i have been asking for just ONE study that support NS in Darwinism and they have not been able to produce one. just a bunch of bluffing.

NewLurker: Darwinism is evolution by natural selection and mutation, and it's what creationists hate: the idea that mindless processes can be a creative force, because that neatly does away with any need for God as an explanation.

Therefore, they'll tell you that they accept evolution (animals changing over time, which is well evidenced) but not Darwinian evolution. They pretend that they're only doubting it for scientific reasons, of course.

The problem is that it IS hard to evidence natural selection and evolution. Not only does it only happen over huge time scales, but the mathematics of it is very difficult (to me, at least). So creationists use this ignorance to claim that no such evidence exists.

I personally would like to see a convincing explanation of the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but unlike creationists, I'm not going to assume that science is wrong/lying just because of my ignorance.

Dale Husband said:

cobby said: ...they have few answers. i have been asking for just ONE study that support NS in Darwinism and they have not been able to produce one. just a bunch of bluffing.

Liar.

Venus Mousetrap said: The problem is that it IS hard to evidence natural selection and evolution. Not only does it only happen over huge time scales, but the mathematics of it is very difficult (to me, at least). So creationists use this ignorance to claim that no such evidence exists. I personally would like to see a convincing explanation of the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but unlike creationists, I'm not going to assume that science is wrong/lying just because of my ignorance.

ONE study that support NS in Darwinism

— Jobb

iml8 said: I think it would be fun for PT to collaborate on a deadpan Darwin-bashing review of this book and then send it to UNCOMMON DESCENT. "It's not like we don't see you folks coming." I could probably write a better hatchet job than they could. Maybe I will when I get my hands on it. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Shouldn't jobby be required to come up with some new material before he's allowed to hijack another thread?

PZ,

Please delete all comments by Cobby/Jobby/Bobby. It is intellectually incapable of reading any scientific literature and emotionally incapable of accepting any of the findings of science. The last thread it was allowed to hijack went on for 1500 off topic posts. PvM has already banned it on all of his threads, I suggest that you do the same. Please don't let this microcephalic chimpanzeee derail another thread with it's incessant whinning and feces slinging. We already know it doesn't understand anything about science and none of us care. Make an example of it once and for all.

cobby said:

PvM said:

ONE study that support NS in Darwinism

— Jobb

You have been provided with sufficient resources that show your claim to be once again lacking inf fact my dear confused friend.

.....well paraphrase the parts of it you feel are pertinent. I think all can see you are BSing and there is no such study that you have read other wise why wont you discuss it?

cobby said: Experiments can be done with a population of captive organisms in which artificial selection can be done to change a certain trait in that population .. of course that is provable. but can a MAJOR body plan change happen? it has not happened with dogs. just because things can evolve small changes does not mean those can add up to large changes. sorry charlie. no cigar.

Venus Mousetrap said: NewLurker: Darwinism is evolution by natural selection and mutation, and it's what creationists hate: the idea that mindless processes can be a creative force, because that neatly does away with any need for God as an explanation. Therefore, they'll tell you that they accept evolution (animals changing over time, which is well evidenced) but not Darwinian evolution. They pretend that they're only doubting it for scientific reasons, of course.

Venus Mousetrap said: NewLurker: Darwinism is evolution by natural selection and mutation, and it's what creationists hate: the idea that mindless processes can be a creative force, because that neatly does away with any need for God as an explanation. Therefore, they'll tell you that they accept evolution (animals changing over time, which is well evidenced) but not Darwinian evolution. They pretend that they're only doubting it for scientific reasons, of course.

Venus Mousetrap said: NewLurker: Darwinism is evolution by natural selection and mutation, and it's what creationists hate: the idea that mindless processes can be a creative force, because that neatly does away with any need for God as an explanation. Therefore, they'll tell you that they accept evolution (animals changing over time, which is well evidenced) but not Darwinian evolution. They pretend that they're only doubting it for scientific reasons, of course.

NewLurker said: Why does he pick the species with more major variations in its body plan than any other on the planet. He presumably thinks their variety is due to the efforts of dog breeders, and could never happen if the selection pressures were "natural".

cobby said: .... dogs have very little variation in body plan. if any. .. do you even know what body plan means. youre a dummy.

It's pretty hard to argue with people who don't need science's (i.e. the real world) pathetic level of detail...
The problem with creationists is that God created a complex, interesting universe. And they want a simple cartoon one.

chuck said: It's pretty hard to argue with people who don't need science's (i.e. the real world) pathetic level of detail... The problem with creationists is that God created a complex, interesting universe. And they want a simple cartoon one.

Stanton said: Creationists don't care about this world/universe, and virtually none of them care about studying this world/universe.

If this is true, then the real surprise is that it is a logical position. With only three score and ten years in this life, and an eternity in the next, trying to understand this world is an unnecessary waste of limited intellectual resources.

NewLurker said:

Stanton said: Creationists don't care about this world/universe, and virtually none of them care about studying this world/universe.

If this is true, then the real surprise is that it is a logical position. With only three score and ten years in this life, and an eternity in the next, trying to understand this world is an unnecessary waste of limited intellectual resources.

NewLurker said:

Stanton said: Creationists don't care about this world/universe, and virtually none of them care about studying this world/universe.

If this is true, then the real surprise is that it is a logical position. With only three score and ten years in this life, and an eternity in the next, trying to understand this world is an unnecessary waste of limited intellectual resources.

chuck said: Then why do they spend so much time and effort trying to convince people that they do try to understand this physical world? They seem to have very strong feelings about how the universe works physically, else why complain about evolution?