RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Rasico -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/15/2008 9:03:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EverLearning

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasico
You seem to misinterpret what I meant, which is probably my fault, I'm generally not precise.


I think it hard to misinterpret what you originally wrote. It was pretty straight forward.


To be fair, I am the best person suited to determining my own intentions. However its very common for me to totally be unclear what I am trying to convey in real life, as well as online. You are correct in determining I have a bias against the notion of evolution, just as before I was saved, my bias was for evolution. My bias will take evidence to change, and until in my mind it is sufficient I will retain a bias one way over the other, like any other human being. I however apologize for my tone if it was rude, arrogant, or condescending, it was not intention and I am sorry if it came across that way. I ask that you do not judge my intent, simply because I am indeed not well spoken. What I wrote originally and what I have said thus far, are entirely consistent in my head even if the words came out wrong. Anyway I hope thats cleared up. Back to the topic at hand.


JHud if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying every single function these bacteria have exhibited was already in the gene pool, and was simply turned on or off? How are these gene regulators passed on and what might cause them to change from parent to offspring? I find it fascinating that such diversity can be contained within one organism, and demonstrates an amazing ability for life to adapt to different conditions. Perhaps you could clear up any misconceptions or over generalizations I have?



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 10:31:07 AM)

quote:

Let me get back to you about this. Now that we’re debating about genetics again, I’m having the same problem with not being particularly familiar with this field, and I’d like to bring it up with someone who’d studied genetics in more depth.


I'm not going anywhere.

Though I have to say I am a bit confused about why, if you aren't particularly familiar with genetics, you brought up an example that is almost wholly predicated on genetic activity.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 11:08:32 AM)

quote:

JHud if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying every single function these bacteria have exhibited was already in the gene pool, and was simply turned on or off? How are these gene regulators passed on and what might cause them to change from parent to offspring? I find it fascinating that such diversity can be contained within one organism, and demonstrates an amazing ability for life to adapt to different conditions. Perhaps you could clear up any misconceptions or over generalizations I have?


Well, I think the example and the paper I cited concerning efflux pumps and antibiotic resistance is a classic examples of this effect.

Certain bacteria have in their membranes pumps which pump toxins out of their cells. whenever they encounter toxin in their environment that pass through the mebranes, the pumps pump it back out again.

In the case of anti-biotics, bacteria see that as a toxin and treat it the same way.

These pumps, like all aspects of the bacterial cell, have a genetic basis. But it is not only the existence of the pumps that is genetic, but the activity and and number of these pumps also has a genetic component; in other words, there are genes that determine how other genes are expressed, or the degree to which they are active. It's sort of like a volume control; a stereo and speakers are designed to play sounds, but the volume control determines how loudly that sound is displayed. Other controls determine other aspects - bass, treble, etc. In the same way, the genetics of the bacteria are engineered to produce efflux pumps, but other genes control the volume of activity of those pumps.

And those regulatory genes appear to respond to stressors in the environment, like the presence of antibiotics.

Now imagine this. Imagine you have a room full of simple radios with volume controls on them. These simple radios do something that other radios don't do - they reproduce. Every radio at certain intervals divides and forms two radios. Got it?

Now imagine that the volume control on each radio is set at a certain volume; some are higher, some are lower - and that is the only volume the radio will play at. When a radio reproduces, the volume control of it's progeny will tend to be like that as it's parent, but that is not always the case; occasionally it can be higher or lower.

Now imagine someone went through with a sound meter and smashed every radio that was over a certain decibel level. The population that resulted would be a number of low volume radios; and the tendency of those radios would be to produce progeny that are also low level radios. This would (particularly from the perspective of someone hearing the sound level in the room) appear to be a significantly different population of radios, though in terms of mechanics and structure, nothing has really changed.

And we are finding increasingly that such controls are found widely throughout genomes - the patterns in butterfly wings, the length of limbs, even the size and thickness of Darwin's famous finches.

And ho does this differ from the way Neo-Darwinism describes biological change? Well neo-Darwinists hold that such changes are mutational - that there is a novel incidental change to gene that produces a novel characteristic in an organism - and accumulations of these changes eventually lead to big changes. Increasingly though we are finding this isn't the case - it is really the interplay of already extant engineering that produces much of the change we see in life.

Now a few caveats. Mutations do exist and they do cause changes - but because the the genome is highly interdependent and complex; such changes are as likely to break existing functionality as produce novel functionality. And there is a 'break to save it' factor where breaking a gene is actually beneficial - this occurs for example with the sickle cell mutation - but this is not the kind of change we generally see, nor is it the kind that seems to be able to lead to the production of novel, complex, interdependent structures.

Also, there is genetic loss. The benefit of losing a capability in some circumstances is that it is an energy saving, because it always 'costs' an organism something to produce a structure - an eye for example. If an organism doesn't need an eye (for example in a a cave environment) then it makes sense for the genome to jettison the genetic capability for producing an eye, which allows the organism to survive in an environment where food (energy) is scarce. This would be akin to breaking the speakers on our metaphorical radios; those radios would still survive the purge of high volume radios.

So we see here a number of strategies, none of them particularly Neo-Darwinian in nature, and yet great variety is possible.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 1:27:10 PM)

quote:

Though I have to say I am a bit confused about why, if you aren't particularly familiar with genetics, you brought up an example that is almost wholly predicated on genetic activity.

Every time we discuss this, I think I understand what you’re demanding to see before you’ll consider Behe’s claims to be falsified, but then when I find an example of what you’re asking for you come up with additional requirements. In the post of yours that I quoted in my OP, you said you would consider it an adequate falsification if we were to discover certain types of changes resulting from a certain number of mutations, but now in this thread you’ve begun saying they can’t be just any mutations; they have to be coding mutations rather than regulatory mutations.

Even if their effect is only to alter the expression of other genes, they’re still mutations. This is definitely an example of what you were asking me for in the post from you that I quoted in my OP. But now that I’ve provided one, you’re doing something called “moving one’s goalposts”.

So basically, I posted this because I wanted to see how you would react to being shown an example of what you’d asked for in the post I quoted. The answer was that you move your goalposts. That’s fine, but it means that in order to meet your new requirements I’m going to have to bring this up with people who have studied genetics more than I have.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 1:45:04 PM)

quote:

Every time we discuss this, I think I understand what you’re demanding to see before you’ll consider Behe’s claims to be falsified, but then when I find an example of what you’re asking for you come up with additional requirements. In the post of yours that I quoted in my OP, you said you would consider it an adequate falsification if we were to discover certain types of changes resulting from a certain number of mutations, but now in this thread you’ve begun saying they can’t be just any mutations; they have to be coding mutations rather than regulatory mutations.

Even if their effect is only to alter the expression of other genes, they’re still mutations. This is definitely an example of what you were asking me for in the post from you that I quoted in my OP. But now that I’ve provided one, you’re doing something called “moving one’s goalposts”.

So basically, I posted this because I wanted to see how you would react to being shown an example of what you’d asked for in the post I quoted. The answer was that you move your goalposts. That’s fine, but it means that in order to meet your new requirements I’m going to have to bring this up with people who have studied genetics more than I have.


Not true; I said 'novel', which would be generally understood to be new or unique, I gave a specific number of such novel changes, which in combination would create the novel capability, and I wanted to see an indication that such changes lead to a unique evolutionary path.

You have given me what appear to be enhancements of extant capabilities resulting from a few simple changes (as one paper mentioned, a single mutation) the result of which did not lead to a unique evolutionary path, but a plateau over which no further changes were evident.

It's not my fault if you don't understand the criteria sufficiently to meet them; it has nothing to do with where the 'goalposts' are.

Indeed, I could have been more stringent; if I wanted to be persnickety I would have required what Neo-Darwinism actually claims - that a series of gradual incidental changes occurring over time accumulated in just the right fashion so as to produce significantly complex structures and systems, the appearance of which is that they are irreducibly complex.

However, being the generous person that I am, I knew that was an exceedingly difficult thing to observe, and so I lowered the bar for you.

Apparently, not enough.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 3:07:03 PM)

quote:

You have given me what appear to be enhancements of extant capabilities resulting from a few simple changes (as one paper mentioned, a single mutation) the result of which did not lead to a unique evolutionary path, but a plateau over which no further changes were evident.

Don’t oversimplify it. One of the changes (the ability to develop mats) was not an enhancement to an existing ability, and the other which was an enhancement involved multiple mutations. Your problem in the latter case was that there was no way to prove that these multiple mutations were coding mutations rather than regulatory mutations, which don’t qualify in your book.

With this in mind, someone at Christian Forums who knows more about genetics has pointed me to a similar change involving three separate coding mutations, which can be found here. Whether or not you consider this an enhancement to an existing ability is irrelevant in this case, because the three mutations that caused the change have all been identified—they’re substitution mutations, resulting in entirely new genetic information, rather than simply turning existing genes on or off. This goes against Behe’s claim that multiple mutations are unable to accumulate in order to create new abilities like this.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 3:36:17 PM)

quote:

Don’t oversimplify it. One of the changes (the ability to develop mats) was not an enhancement to an existing ability, and the other which was an enhancement involved multiple mutations. Your problem in the latter case was that there was no way to prove that these multiple mutations were coding mutations rather than regulatory mutations, which don’t qualify in your book.


I’m not oversimplifying it, you are; I was the one who detailed the sort of genetic changes that took place – I didn’t simply lump them under the common rubric, “Evolution” and call it a day.

And incidentally, the development of mats does involve regulatory changes, though in this case, possible a single mutation as well.

quote:

With this in mind, someone at Christian Forums who knows more about genetics has pointed me to a similar change involving three separate coding mutations, which can be found here. Whether or not you consider this an enhancement to an existing ability is irrelevant in this case, because the three mutations that caused the change have all been identified—they’re substitution mutations, resulting in entirely new genetic information, rather than simply turning existing genes on or off. This goes against Behe’s claim that multiple mutations are unable to accumulate in order to create new abilities like this.


Do you even have any idea what the mutations do, or how they do it? Do you care?



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 4:17:49 PM)

quote:

Do you even have any idea what the mutations do, or how they do it? Do you care?

It’s three separate substitution mutations in HIV, all of which have the combined effect to reduce its susceptibility to the drug DMP 266. The type of mutations that they are is the relevant part—they aren’t simply changing the regulation of a piece of code that already exists. The code itself is what’s being altered.

Why are you bringing up an ad hominem now? Are you just trying to evade my point? You know very well why this is relevant. You claimed that multiple mutations aren’t able to accumulate in order to create a novel function, and regulatory mutations don’t count because they’re only changing the expression of code that already exists. All right, fine, so here’s an example of a series of three mutations causing a new trait to appear by altering the coding itself. Are you going to admit you were wrong that multiple coding mutations are unable to cause these types of changes?



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 4:35:15 PM)

quote:

It’s three separate substitution mutations in HIV, all of which have the combined effect to reduce its susceptibility to the drug DMP 266. The type of mutations that they are is the relevant part—they aren’t simply changing the regulation of a piece of code that already exists. The code itself is what’s being altered.


You didn't actually answer my question - I asked, how do they work - that is, how do the mutations "reduce its susceptibility to the drug DMP 266"? This is a crtitical question.

quote:

Why are you bringing up an ad hominem now? Are you just trying to evade my point? You know very well why this is relevant. You claimed that multiple mutations aren’t able to accumulate in order to cause something like this, and regulatory mutations don’t count because they’re only changing the expression of code that already exists. All right, fine, so here’s an example of a series of three mutations causing a new trait to appear by altering the coding itself. Are you going to admit you were wrong that multiple coding mutations are unable to cause these types of changes?


That wasn't an ad hom - I seriously want to know if you really care how it works, because from where I am sitting you seem to rather desperately be trying to find an example, any example, to win some sort of debate.

Personally, I don't care all that much about the debate; I want to know how things really work, and I have to say that is one thing that rather annoys me in the conversations I have had with evolutionists over the last 20 years or so; they are more interested in defending evolution than they are in understanding how things work.

I mean, here we have a rather lengthy examination of the science behind the structure and activity of microorganisms and how they actually work, which in my mind is incredibly fascinating whatever it says about evolution and intelligent design.

And so papers are cited and discussed, explanations are offered, and the actual process of science, which is supposed to be about exploration and understanding, is enabled.

And what do you want out of it all? Apparently to score some points.

Anytime we subvert our thinking to certain presumptions that prevent the adoption of new paradigms that actually provide explanations for phenomena, we fail to think scientifically; it is ultimately anti-intellectual.

So, not having access to the full paper or later studies on it, I only have some suspicions about how these mutations cause a reduction in susceptibility to anti-viral medications (partly based on the paradigm under which I operate). If you actually know how these mutations do this, I would love to hear it.



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 8:50:52 PM)

Perhaps you would fair better, Agahnim, if you choose not to employ the unfairly sullied word of evolution in the future as your antagonists are overtly jaundiced to any report with positive reference to it.

In lieu I would suggest "quirky emergent divergence" or as a recent post has shown a fondness of acronyms in these discussions...

Q.E.D.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 11:14:08 PM)

quote:

Perhaps you would fair better, Agahnim, if you choose not to employ the unfairly sullied word of evolution in the future as your antagonists are overtly jaundiced to any report with positive reference to it.

In lieu I would suggest "quirky emergent divergence" or as a recent post has shown a fondness of acronyms in these discussions...

Q.E.D.


Or more appropriately a Rare Incidental Permutation.

R.I.P.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/16/2008 11:22:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Or more appropriately a Rare Incidental Permutation.

R.I.P.


RIP evolution, RIP.

Btw, I would like to read Drmark's take on this thread, since this seems to be something he would be familiar with (probably more so than anyone else here).



DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 10:40:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Or more appropriately a Rare Incidental Permutation.

R.I.P.


RIP evolution, RIP.

Btw, I would like to read Drmark's take on this thread, since this seems to be something he would be familiar with (probably more so than anyone else here).


Only if he's had a reason to study genetics.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 10:53:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Only if he's had a reason to study genetics.


Well, if memory serves me correctly, he has his bachelors in biology and he's a medical doctor who specializes in the immune system and infectious diseases. So how bacteria work should be something he is very familiar with. I remember seeing him discuss specifics on related topics and he does seem to be very familiar with this stuff (Since his job pretty much relates to having to figure out how to overcome antibiotic resistance. Unfortunately, when people do get into too much detail, it seems to confuse most people which isn't very beneficial, but most here try to explain things as simply as possible so all could understand).

(BTW, RIP = Rest in Peace)



DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 12:14:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Only if he's had a reason to study genetics.


Well, if memory serves me correctly, he has his bachelors in biology and he's a medical doctor who specializes in the immune system and infectious diseases. So how bacteria work should be something he is very familiar with. I remember seeing him discuss specifics on related topics and he does seem to be very familiar with this stuff (Since his job pretty much relates to having to figure out how to overcome antibiotic resistance. Unfortunately, when people do get into too much detail, it seems to confuse most people which isn't very beneficial, but most here try to explain things as simply as possible so all could understand).

(BTW, RIP = Rest in Peace)

Sorry, maybe the signal was too low to get a reading on the irony meeter. That was a joke.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 12:24:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Sorry, maybe the signal was too low to get a reading on the irony meeter. That was a joke.


Sorry I didn't catch that. I figure you were new here so you haven't been around long enough to know who specializes in what fields.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 4:59:22 PM)

quote:

That wasn't an ad hom - I seriously want to know if you really care how it works, because from where I am sitting you seem to rather desperately be trying to find an example, any example, to win some sort of debate.

Personally, I don't care all that much about the debate; I want to know how things really work, and I have to say that is one thing that rather annoys me in the conversations I have had with evolutionists over the last 20 years or so; they are more interested in defending evolution than they are in understanding how things work.

I mean, here we have a rather lengthy examination of the science behind the structure and activity of microorganisms and how they actually work, which in my mind is incredibly fascinating whatever it says about evolution and intelligent design.

And so papers are cited and discussed, explanations are offered, and the actual process of science, which is supposed to be about exploration and understanding, is enabled.

And what do you want out of it all? Apparently to score some points.

Anytime we subvert our thinking to certain presumptions that prevent the adoption of new paradigms that actually provide explanations for phenomena, we fail to think scientifically; it is ultimately anti-intellectual.

So, not having access to the full paper or later studies on it, I only have some suspicions about how these mutations cause a reduction in susceptibility to anti-viral medications (partly based on the paradigm under which I operate). If you actually know how these mutations do this, I would love to hear it.

I think the other person I’ve been discussing this with is looking for a more detailed explanation about the effects of these mutations. (That’s assuming you aren’t able to access the full text of the paper I linked to—it’s often accessible through educational institutions.) But in the meantime I’d like to address the rest of what you’ve said. You’re right that my goal here is more than just to understand how all of these things work, but “scoring points” isn’t exactly the right way to put it.

I’ve mentioned here once before why I think Intelligent Design doesn’t make proper use of the scientific method, so in other words I don’t think it’s science. That doesn’t mean it bothers me that Intelligent Design exists, since it’s probably less harmful than a lot of other crackpot theories out there, as long as it doesn’t get taught in public school science classes. The same principle applies to most people who promote ID, since most of them are young-earth creationists anyway. (Even though YEC isn’t part of ID, this is definitely true—all of the major YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis support it, and are much larger in terms of numbers than any organizations specific to ID.) But there’s something unusual in your case, which is that you seem intelligent and knowledgeable enough that I think you’re capable of applying the scientific method to all areas of science; for one reason or other you just seem to be choosing not to. And as a result, this bothers me more in your case than it does for most of the other posters here.

What I’m talking about involves more than just the difference between you believing in life’s current diversity being the result of evolution, and it being the result of evolution with some divine intervention here and there. If the latter where what you believed, and that’s all there was to it, there would actually be a larger disagreement between you and young-earth creationists at this forum than there is between you and people like me. It sounds like you believe in an old earth, which means you disagree with YECs in the areas of geology, astrophysics, biogeography, and radiometric dating. But those disagreements are never what you want to talk about in this section of the forum—it’s always just the biochemical shortcomings that you think exist in evolution, even though those are pretty minor compared to what you disagree with YECs about.

Let’s suppose for a moment that there’s something wrong with my HIV example also, and Behe is right that nobody has ever observed a new function evolving as a result of multiple coding mutations. Let’s suppose he’s even right that there are certain biochemical functions for which nobody can currently explain how they would have evolved. What would it mean? It would mean that evolution is exactly the same in this respect as Quantum Mechanics, astrophysics, most theories of psychology, and almost every other scientific theory in existence—it’s a work in progress, that will gradually be extended to explain more and more as people learn how to incorporate new data into it. And in the meantime, the data that all of these theories are able to explain still makes them the best explanation we have for the way the world works. You clearly aren’t stupid; I think you’re probably aware of what evidence like this exists in evolution’s case. But if you aren’t, there’s a very general overview of it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I mentioned in my post at the bottom of this page that you seem to be holding evolution to a different standard from what you apply to any other scientific theory. I also mentioned what the Discovery Institute has stated is their reason for doing this, and I wonder a little whether you’re doing it for the same reason. You never replied to my post there, though, so I don’t know the answer. What I know for certain is that you’re doing very much the same thing for which Jesus rebuked the Pharisees—you cooperate with the young-earth creationists at this forum because of the speck you see in the eye of evolution, while never saying anything about the plank in the eye of your own “side” in this debate.

Yes, I have a problem with that, and I was hoping to discuss it with you when I brought it up previously. But since you don’t seem willing to discuss the actual methodology of ID, or what’s hypocritical about it, what am I left to discuss about this? The main aspect of ID that you seem interested in discussing here is its claims about the biochemical shortcomings of evolution, so if I’m going to find any kind of flaw in ID during my debates with you, it’ll have to be there.

If you want to know what matters to me here, it’s what I described. It isn’t “winning points” in the debate.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 5:24:09 PM)

quote:

But there’s something unusual in your case, which is that you seem intelligent and knowledgeable enough that I think you’re capable of applying the scientific method to all areas of science; for one reason or other you just seem to be choosing not to. And as a result, this bothers me more in your case than it does for most of the other posters here.


Apparently your own condescension doesn’t bother you in the least.

I don’t know how old you are, but I am willing to guess I have been “applying the scientific method” much longer than yourself, and that I was an adamant evolutionist long before you knew what the word meant.

quote:

What I’m talking about involves more than just the difference between you believing in life’s current diversity being the result of evolution, and it being the result of evolution with some divine intervention here and there. If the latter where what you believed, and that’s all there was to it, there would actually be a larger disagreement between you and young-earth creationists at this forum than there is between you and people like me. It sounds like you believe in an old earth, which means you disagree with YECs in the areas of geology, astrophysics, biogeography, and radiometric dating. But those disagreements are never what you want to talk about in this section of the forum—it’s always just the biochemical shortcomings that you think exist in evolution, even though those are pretty minor compared to what you disagree with YECs about.


I was a biology major; I try to stick to what I know, and the atheists and evolutionists keep me pretty busy. Plus I think the age of the earth is irrelevant to whether evolution actually occurred as it is said to.

quote:

Let’s suppose for a moment that there’s something wrong with my HIV example also, and Behe is right that nobody has ever observed a new function evolving as a result of multiple coding mutations. Let’s suppose he’s even right that there are certain biochemical functions for which nobody can currently explain how they would have evolved. What would it mean? It would mean that evolution is exactly the same in this respect as Quantum Mechanics, astrophysics, most theories of psychology, and almost every other scientific theory in existence—it’s a work in progress, that will gradually be extended to explain more and more as people learn how to incorporate new data into it. And in the meantime, the data that all of these theories are able to explain still makes them the best explanation we have for the way the world works. You clearly aren’t stupid; I think you’re probably aware of what evidence like this exists in evolution’s case. But if you aren’t, there’s a very general overview of it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Again, I was probably aware of such information long before you were; indeed, I probably used it to debate against non-evolutionists (better I might say than most evolutionists around here ever manage to) long before you started parroting talkorigins.

Unlike quantum mechanics, and astrophysics, etc, evolutionary theory is 150 years old. It is of the same thought process that produced Marxism and Freud. It began when no one knew about genetics, or complex cellular structures, or replicating information systems. I think science needs to look forward, not get stuck in a Victorian parlor wrangling over pet theories.

quote:

I mentioned in my post at the bottom of this page that you seem to be holding evolution to a different standard from what you apply to any other scientific theory. I also mentioned what the Discovery Institute has stated is their reason for doing this, and I wonder a little whether you’re doing it for the same reason. You never replied to my post there, though, so I don’t know the answer. What I know for certain is that you’re doing very much the same thing for which Jesus rebuked the Pharisees—you defend the young-earth creationists at this forum because of the speck you see in the eye of evolution, while never saying anything about the plank in the eye of your own “side” in this debate.


I always love it when evolutionists use theological arguments to defend their supposed scientific theories and methods!

I don’t know where you think I have “defend[ed] the young-earth creationists”; I defend what I believe to be true, whatever the source. I have even been known to defend evolutionists on the rare occasion when they are right about something.

But I will tell you this – invariably evolutionists cannot keep to the science. You proposed certain evidences here, I answered those evidences scientifically – and when you came to the end of your argument, you felt the need to try to attack and demean others, poison the well, and drag in topics that have nothing to do with bacterial evolution or resistance development in viruses.

I have become convinced, because I have seen this happen so many times, that this is because evolutionists do not have substantive science on their side, and it is only a matter of time where they will be generally dismissed, at least the way the theory is argued by yourself and other neo-darwinists.

quote:

Yes, I have a problem with that, and I was hoping to discuss it with you when I brought it up previously. But since you don’t seem willing to discuss the actual methodology of ID, or what’s hypocritical about it, what am I left to discuss about this? The main aspect of ID that you seem interested in discussing here is its claims about the biochemical shortcomings of evolution, so if I’m going to find any kind of flaw in ID, it’ll have to be there.


Well, presumably this thread was about evidence for evolution, but you seem not to actually be able to carry on a conversation about this for more than a few sentences. If you want to to discuss the shortcomings of ID, such threads are all over this forum; I would engage you on this issue at any time.

quote:

If you want to know what matters to me here, it’s what I described. It isn’t “winning points” in the debate.


Well, that's good, because you aren't doing so well in that regard.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 5:46:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Unlike quantum mechanics, and astrophysics, etc, evolutionary theory is 150 years old. It is of the same thought process that produced Marxism and Freud. It began when no one knew about genetics, or complex cellular structures, or replicating information systems. I think science needs to look forward, not get stuck in a Victorian parlor wrangling over pet theories.


I think evolution has come along way since Darwin's time. It is hardly some sort of time-capsule of thought out of a Dickens novel. In particular, genetics has revolutionized and strengthened evolutionary theory. And biologists continue to search and move forward in their understanding.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 6:06:07 PM)

quote:

Again, I was probably aware of such information long before you were; indeed, I probably used it to debate against non-evolutionists (better I might say than most evolutionists around here ever manage to) long before you started parroting talkorigins.

Unlike quantum mechanics, and astrophysics, etc, evolutionary theory is 150 years old. It is of the same thought process that produced Marxism and Freud. It began when no one knew about genetics, or complex cellular structures, or replicating information systems. I think science needs to look forward, not get stuck in a Victorian parlor wrangling over pet theories.

In that case, you should know about what its current explanatory power is. If you want to me to provide what I think is the best example of this, I can do so rather than just linking to a list.

The age of the theory is irrelevant, because evolution is no longer the same theory that it was 150 years ago. I know you’re aware of this also, and how new discoveries such as genetics have been incorporated into it. Why do you focus on its few biochemical shortcomings, when these are no different than the shortcomings in any other scientific theory?

quote:

I always love it when evolutionists use theological arguments to defend their supposed scientific theories and methods!

I don’t know where you think I have “defend[ed] the young-earth creationists”; I defend what I believe to be true, whatever the source. I have even been known to defend evolutionists on the rare occasion when they are right about something.

Yet you don’t post anything here about the age of the earth, and here’s your excuse not to: “Plus I think the age of the earth is irrelevant to whether evolution actually occurred it is said to.” And is evolution itself the only topic ever discussed in this section of the forum? There are plenty of threads where the age of the earth is the only thing being discussed, and if you post in those at all, it’s in order to attack an argument someone used there to support the idea of evolution specifically. You are not interested in defending what you believe to be true in all areas—based on what you choose to and choose not to debate about at this forum, you are only interested in defending what you believe to be true about intelligent design.

quote:

But I will tell you this – invariably evolutionists cannot keep to the science. You proposed certain evidences here, I answered those evidences scientifically – and when you came to the end of your argument, you felt the need to try to attack and demean others, poison the well, and drag in topics that have nothing to do with bacterial evolution or resistance development in viruses.

Actually, I brought this up because you challenged me about why I appeared more interested in “winning” the debate than I was in discussing the exact working of the genetic examples which you’d already made clear you wouldn’t accept as a refutation of Behe’s claims. You asked me a question about what I was after, and I answered it. Do you have a problem with that?

quote:

Well, presumably this thread was about evidence for evolution, but you seem not to actually be able to carry on a conversation about this for more than a few sentences. If you want to to discuss the shortcomings of ID, such threads are all over this forum; I would engage you on this issue at any time.

Except that when it comes to this double standard, you don’t. You didn’t when I brought it up before, you haven’t in any of the other threads where people have talked about it, and in this thread you responded to it with another bevy of ad-homs which didn’t even attempt to address my point. I’ve searched through some of your older posts, and you’ve never addressed this point beyond what you’ve said here: evolution is an old theory, mixed together with a bunch of name-calling, none of which has anything to do with the point being made.

I find this fascinating, really. Particularly the transition between your previous post, which was nothing but a reasonable request for an explanation of what I was after, and this one, which was an angry tirade which did not say anything about the point I was making. And there are the inevitable accusations of me being unable to stay on-topic, which in this case refer specifically to me answering what you just asked me. What causes a person to become so angry at having their question answered?

You’re able to be reasonable on this forum something like 80% of the time, but what I’m seeing now is what I see whenever someone makes a point against ID that you aren’t able to answer. (Even if, as in this case, it was something you had just requested.) I’m gaining a pretty good understanding of how it is that you’re able to understand most topics so well, but in the case of this one there are certain problems with it that you always overlook—it’s because whenever those problems are pointed out to you, as in this case, reason temporarily goes out the window. Do you actually think my response to your question is an inability to stay on topic, or that your bringing up how old the theory of evolution is makes any difference when discussing the explanatory power of its current version, or whether its shortcomings are different from those of any other theory? Perhaps if you examine the arguments you’re relying on now, you’ll understand how your support of Intelligent Design is based on something other than reason. That is, if you aren’t too angry now to think about this objectively.



drmark -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 10:47:02 PM)

quote:

quote:

Btw, I would like to read Drmark's take on this thread, since this seems to be something he would be familiar with (probably more so than anyone else here).
Only if he's had a reason to study genetics.
Oh, I thought my ears were burning. Sorry guys, if it doesn't sneeze or wheeze, I'm pretty worthless at this point in my dwindling career.

However, in order not to disappoint my fan base, I will offer the following comment. Every bacterial "mutation' discovered to date which confers antibiotic resistance does so at some survivability cost to the wild organism in its natural (antibiotic-free) environment. I see nothing in my brief perusal of these references that indicates it will be any different for them. Thus, by definition, these are not beneficial mutations which add more useful or complex information to the original genome. Thus, no basis for evolution of more complex organisms is seen in these examples.

Please do carry on with the mud-slinging. It's much more entertaining than network television.



Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/17/2008 10:58:54 PM)

quote:

In that case, you should know about what its current explanatory power is. If you want to me to provide what I think is the best example of this, I can do so rather than just linking to a list.


I am aware of it’s presumed ‘explanatory power’, and I am not sure what you are going to add to what my professors taught as well as my own reading

quote:

The age of the theory is irrelevant, because evolution is no longer the same theory that it was 150 years ago. I know you’re aware of this also, and how new discoveries such as genetics have been incorporated into it. Why do you focus on its few biochemical shortcomings, when these are no different than the shortcomings in any other scientific theory?


quote:

I think there are more than a few biochemical shortcomings, and I don’t think new discoveries are helping. And generally (particularly after a century or so) observations should trend toward support of a theory, not generally away.


quote:

Yet you don’t post anything here about the age of the earth, and here’s your excuse not to: “Plus I think the age of the earth is irrelevant to whether evolution actually occurred it is said to.” And is evolution itself the only topic ever discussed in this section of the forum? There are plenty of threads where the age of the earth is the only thing being discussed, and if you post in those at all, it’s in order to attack an argument someone used there to support the idea of evolution specifically. You are not interested in defending what you believe to be true in all areas—based on what you choose to and choose not to debate about at this forum, you are only interested in defending what you believe to be true about intelligent design.


Well, I have been fairly clear about why this is, but if you missed it, I will elaborate:

I don’t find the subject that interesting.

I’m not a geologist by education, so I don’t offer any particular additional knowledge on the issue.

I think the science indicates the earth is quite old, I have said so, and I don’t have a whole lot to add to that.

I am particularly interested in ID, and probably more knowledgeable than most around here on that particular subject, so I tend to concentrate on discussions about that.

There are other subjects I discuss around this forum, but they aren’t necessarily related to science so you probably don’t see them.

Clear enough?

quote:

Actually, I brought this up because you challenged me about why I appeared more interested in “winning” the debate than I was in discussing the exact working of the genetic examples which you’d already made clear you wouldn’t accept as a refutation of Behe’s claims. You asked me a question about what I was after, and I answered it. Do you have a problem with that?

My problem is with the fact that you can’t seem to stick to the science we are actually discussing.

quote:

Except that when it comes to this double standard, you don’t. You didn’t when I brought it up before, you haven’t in any of the other threads where people have talked about it, and in this thread you responded to it with another bevy of ad-homs which didn’t even attempt to address my point. I’ve searched through some of your older posts, and you’ve never addressed this point beyond what you’ve said here: evolution is an old theory, mixed together with a bunch of name-calling, none of which has anything to do with the point being made.

I find this fascinating, really. Particularly the transition between your previous post, which was nothing but a reasonable request for an explanation of what I was after, and this one, which was an angry tirade which did not say anything about the point I was making. And there are the inevitable accusations of me being unable to stay on-topic, which in this case refer specifically to me answering what you just asked me. What causes a person to become so angry at having their question answered?

You’re able to be reasonable on this forum something like 80% of the time, but what I’m seeing now is what I see whenever someone makes a point against ID that you aren’t able to answer. (Even if, as in this case, it was something you had just requested.) I’m gaining a pretty good understanding of how it is that you’re able to understand most topics so well, but in the case of this one there are certain problems with it that you always overlook—it’s because whenever those problems are pointed out to you, as in this case, reason temporarily goes out the window. Do you actually think my response to your question is an inability to stay on topic, or that your bringing up how old the theory of evolution is makes any difference when discussing the explanatory power of its current version, or whether its shortcomings are different from those of any other theory? Perhaps if you examine the arguments you’re relying on now, you’ll understand how your support of Intelligent Design is based on something other than reason. That is, if you aren’t too angry now to think about this objectively.
I

guess I thought we were discussing the NYTs article you cited and the summary concerning resistance to antiviral cocktails, neither of which had anything to do with ID – now all of a sudden you have made a ‘point’ against ID that I’m not answering.

Maybe it was buried in the last lengthy post somewhere, just show it to me and I would be all to glad to respond.

And I’m not the least bit angry; I simply can’t follow your meandering logic. One minute it’s E. Coli, the next post it’s “I really don’t know genetics”, the next it’s AIDs virus resistance, then YEC, the next it’s more about the Discovery Institute.

Perhaps when you are reasonable more than 50% of the time you will get a more satisfactory response.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 1:40:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
But those disagreements are never what you want to talk about in this section of the forum—it’s always just the biochemical shortcomings that you think exist in evolution, even though those are pretty minor compared to what you disagree with YECs about.


The shortcomings of UCD are far greater than those of ID (and creationism). If ID was as bad as UCD in terms of shortcomings, I'm sure someone on these forums would have been able to explain why by now. So far, no one has. It's ok for UCD to have huge shortcomings but ID can't have any.

quote:


I’ve mentioned here once before why I think Intelligent Design doesn’t make proper use of the scientific method, so in other words I don’t think it’s science.


What makes you the ultimate authority over what constitutes science?

quote:


as long as it doesn’t get taught in public school science classes.


Why should you determine what gets taught in classes and what constitutes science? Let it be taught and let the students decide whether or not it's science.

You know, it's interesting how Intelligent Design is substantial enough for Science (ie: the article that you posted on another thread and Jhud posted a link to Behe's response) to publish an attempted rebuttal but it's not substantial enough for them to publish Behe's response (unless they're quoting him for the sake of an attempted rebuttal). Seems like they aren't interested in science and honestly presenting both sides of the issue, they are only interested in presenting one side and only one side of the issue (the side that's consistent with materialism). What, are they afraid scientists might actually embrace ID?

quote:


But there’s something unusual in your case, which is that you seem intelligent and knowledgeable enough that I think you’re capable of applying the scientific method to all areas of science; for one reason or other you just seem to be choosing not to.


Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they aren't applying the scientific method.

quote:


The age of the theory is irrelevant, because evolution is no longer the same theory that it was 150 years ago.


Many of its original alleged predictions have been falsified but this hasn't falsified UCD, further demonstrating the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 2:22:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I think evolution has come along way since Darwin's time. It is hardly some sort of time-capsule of thought out of a Dickens novel. In particular, genetics has revolutionized and strengthened evolutionary theory. And biologists continue to search and move forward in their understanding.


It seems evolutionists like to claim things like, "newer evidence has strengthened evolution," but I have not seen substantiation of such claims.



Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 2:48:37 AM)

quote:

I don’t find the subject that interesting.

I’m not a geologist by education, so I don’t offer any particular additional knowledge on the issue.

I think the science indicates the earth is quite old, I have said so, and I don’t have a whole lot to add to that.

It isn’t just about geology. How about the several threads here from the past couple weeks about how ecosystems would have functioned if animals originally never ate meat, or whether animals such as cats would be able to survive without it? You said you were a biology major in college; don’t tell me you have nothing to say about those topics.

You don’t find the subject interesting—that’s the key here. Even though your stated goal is to defend what you think is true, you’d rather do that about very small disagreements in an area that you care about, while ignoring much larger ones that don’t matter to you.

What you post about in other sections of this forum is irrelevant, since I’m only talking about what you choose to debate about in the science section.

quote:

I

guess I thought we were discussing the NYTs article you cited and the summary concerning resistance to antiviral cocktails, neither of which had anything to do with ID – now all of a sudden you have made a ‘point’ against ID that I’m not answering.

Maybe it was buried in the last lengthy post somewhere, just show it to me and I would be all to glad to respond.

And I’m not the least bit angry; I simply can’t follow your meandering logic. One minute it’s E. Coli, the next post it’s “I really don’t know genetics”, the next it’s AIDs virus resistance, then YEC, the next it’s more about the Discovery Institute.

Perhaps when you are reasonable more than 50% of the time you will get a more satisfactory response.

Let’s review how this discussion went:

1: I bring up the new functions that evolved in bacteria, which appear to be an example of what you said you would consider a refutation of Behe’s claims. You said those don’t count, because they’re the result of regulatory mutations rather than coding mutations.

2: I bring up the drug resistance in HIV because that’s an example of a similar change caused by a coding mutation. You ask me why I’m bringing up this new topic, rather than discussing one in depth after you’ve already made it clear it doesn’t qualify as what you were asking for.

3: I answer your question. And now, because my answer was in response to your own request rather than what I brought up in my OP, you accuse me of “meandering logic”, being unable to stay on one topic for more than a few sentences, and everything else you’re saying here.

You did this once before in our debate about bird origins, where you accused me of bringing up a “red herring” when it was the topic I’d been discussing with the other posters there before you began participating in that thread. Why is it that you can bring up whatever sort of off-topic challenge you want in any thread, such as asking me why I appear more interested in “scoring points” than anything else, but whenever I answer it—or even attempt to return the thread to its original topic—you claim that my posts are off-topic?

If you’d prefer that what I brought up in answer to your question be the topic of a new thread, I’ll post one. But I fully expect you to react to that the same way that you’ve reacted here, by bringing up an irrelevant point and then attacking the other person either for answering it, or for going back to the topic that was being discussed previously.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI