Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

In this case, simplifying it down to the core principles to demonstrate that these simple principles can produce the appearance of design is all that matters.

No, actually it doesn't. Read the post to Dogma.

 

[loveofourlord]

It didn't get new genomes - it used that so-called "junk" DNA to repair the existing DNA - those backup copies that enable the DNA to check against to self-correct. The idea that in a system so interdependent on every other genome in the entire body that has mechanisms built in to self-correct and self-repair that damage - is somehow caused by random mutation is just so unscientific it would be laughable if they were not actually serious about it.

It repaired itself - just as it was designed to do from the start. Just as it is designed to do to protect itself against the very mutation claimed to be benefiting it. A one in a billion shot that a mutation is beneficial in the first place, and a one in a billion shot it makes it through the repair process without getting corrected.

Notice how they have switched their stance to human ancestors now being recent in the past - while still requiring those millions of years for a random mutation to fix itself in the population - while the population stays the same (20 or so) until all those shared mutations do their thing, and then bam - the population explodes to meet current observation.

Don't think mutation had anything to do with that self-repair of the damaged DNA strand that allowed those single cell organisms to move. That is already a built-in design of the existing genome - designed specifically to correct for that damage - by mutation of other means.

it didn't repair iteself by any design, it co-opted another gene that was simular but already had a use, just as is the case with how evolution works. Things like snake and platypus venom is just a gene duplication of a existing protein that can then mutate into something different.

And yes mutation had very much to do with it. From the data

--------NtrC shares 30 percent amino acid identity with FleQ, suggesting the proteins may be able to minimally cross-react with each other’s target genes. Sure enough, the researchers determined that the initial mutations, which ramped up NtrC levels, enabled a minor upregulation of FleQ’s target genes. The second mutations to NtrC itself then improved the protein’s interaction with the FleQ targets, boosting their expression, and the bacteria’s ability to swim-------------

Right there MUTATION, two genes mutating to interact with each other to fix and create a new system when old one was broken, this is how evolution works, not sure how much clearer it needs to be. Nothing about a repair to the original gene, or junk DNA, this was using the bacteria's other genes and gene duplication to create a new system, just as evolution shows and predicts.

 

[whois]

The biggest and most important element in this type of program is that the outcome is pre-set or pre-ordained. NO pre-set and intelligently designed program can simulate a purely undirected, unguided, mindless process which has no goals or plans and has no way to provide a system where the "designs" become non-functional due to harmful mutations. These programs do not represent the true biological evolution of living organisms.

i disagree.
chemistry follows rules, equations governs how it reacts.
by necessity, this precludes "randomness" and therefor give an appearance of a direction.
protein folding throws in more unrandomness.
in my opinion, this could give the appearance of a mind, or intelligence, at work.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, this was the reason I was asking for clarification. Was the repair just a random process or was it the result of a 'programmed' impetus.

If you read it, it was random, mutations to two genes allowed for a work around, but wasn't some 'programed' tihng.

 

[The Cadet]

I never specified designed purpose. You asked what purpose was in living forms. Move the goalposts much?

No. Because what you just did was a massive equivocation. There is no "purpose" to a single-celled organism. Its structures have "purpose" in the sense that they fulfill certain roles within the cell. This is not the same thing as the kind of purpose something has when it is designed! Ergo, you have not provided evidence of purpose in design! You want to call that a goalposts shift? Fine. But in that case I left the goalposts about 5 feet from the starting line and really was derelict in my duty of demanding evidence for your nonsensical claims.

No, actually it doesn't. Read the post to Dogma.

At this point I don't really care. You've ignored evidence that structures we see in nature that you consider "designed" evolved, and now you're ignoring that distinctly non-designed genetic algorithms can produce what appears for all intents and purposes to be designed cars. So what else? What other evidence do you care to ignore, deflect, or otherwise pretend is meaningless?

The number of variables doesn't matter. The number of aspects does not matter. It is an inherent simplification of a complex process that keeps the necessary elements intact in order to prove a point.

Complexity does not matter; what matters is that it shows apparent design without being designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You would think that if evolution explains the diversity so well and has mountains and mountains of evidence that those who debate it would be able to present something other than an intelligently designed model as evidence for the design in all living things. When that fails...mockery is the only option.

And it has been presented.

The response from your side is exactly what loveofyourlord said: "I object" followed by nonsense.

You claimed that evolution is incapable of producing things that appear designed.

I just gave you black on white evidence that this is incorrect...
Which is an evolutionary process that starts with random shapes like

And which results in shapes like this, each of them highly specialised for the track they find themselves on

Which is a direct refutation of your point. Literally.

Your response? An intellectually dishonest one liner that can literally be used against ANY controlled experiment. Pure anti-science rethoric.

If you aren't even capable of acknowledging a simple point like this one (that evolution is more then capable of producing designs), then what is the point in continuing with more advanced, more complex things?

 

[DogmaHunter]

In fact, mainstream biologists are discovering enough to confirm design on their own!

Do these cars appear designed to you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It does matter

It doesn't matter to the point being made.

That point being that the simple process of "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat" is more then capable of producing things that are highly specilised for the environment they find themselves in.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Clarified them? I've stated it over a 100 times in different posts, so much so I got tired of repeating myself and made an attachment specifically because people can't seem to get it right. It's not my fault you can't remember anything past the previous post.


What evidence? Incorrectly classified Finches and fossils?


And yet it is those same evolutionists who's papers you cite that also supprt Darwin and those claim's of Finches undergoing speciation and being seperate species. Despite the DNA evidence and despite the fact they all interbreed. Sure, blame it all on a dead man so you can ignore they are still making the same wrong claims today.

You seem to be thinking that evolutionary biologists today consider Darwin and The Origin of Species to be like THE go-to reference.

You are aware that this was 200 years ago, right?
You are aware that science has progressed since then, right?

Perhaps it's time for you to update your information......

Why would you even try to classify research into religious or non-religious? What is that nonsense? Science is science. I notice the electricity works because of Maxwell, regardless of whether he was Christian or not. It is YOU that wanted to divide science into classifications. Make up your mind what you believe from one post to the next.

WHAT????

It's YOU that brought it up!!! Just how dishonest can you get???

No, he informed the Pope that it was made so that those who chose not to attach religious beliefs to it could do so, but in no-wise subtracted from it being a creation event.

"As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

That was his response to the pope when the pope tried to use his theory as a validation of religious creation events.
LeMaitre was alarmed by that and didn't like it one bit.
LeMaitre was quite strict in keeping his science and his religious beliefs seperate of eachother.

But hey, by all means... pretend that that isn't true.

But it's not me that thinks that because one has a specific belief - science is not valid when discovered by them.

Then why did you bring it up?

EDIT: What did Newton get wrong?

Seriously?

 

[justlookinla]

If you read it, it was random, mutations to two genes allowed for a work around, but wasn't some 'programed' tihng.

In your post #209, you said..."Sure enough one or more members of the bacteria got a new protein".

Now, was this protein which fixed the flagellum a random production of protein which the flagellum just happened to need and use?

 

[justlookinla]

You seem to be thinking that evolutionary biologists today consider Darwin and The Origin of Species to be like THE go-to reference.

You are aware that this was 200 years ago, right?
You are aware that science has progressed since then, right?

Perhaps it's time for you to update your information......

Would the update to Darwin's guesses and suppositions change from the basic 'mutate-survive-reproduce' proposal of how all life, including humanity, was created?

 

[justlookinla]

And it has been presented.

The response from your side is exactly what loveofyourlord said: "I object" followed by nonsense.

You claimed that evolution is incapable of producing things that appear designed.

I just gave you black on white evidence that this is incorrect...
Which is an evolutionary process that starts with random shapes like
View attachment 161660

And which results in shapes like this, each of them highly specialised for the track they find themselves on

View attachment 161662

Which is a direct refutation of your point. Literally.

Your response? An intellectually dishonest one liner that can literally be used against ANY controlled experiment. Pure anti-science rethoric.

If you aren't even capable of acknowledging a simple point like this one (that evolution is more then capable of producing designs), then what is the point in continuing with more advanced, more complex things?

When those cars are manufactured, design is unmistakable, unless one were to believe cars are a product of random production events.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Would the update to Darwin's guesses and suppositions change from the basic 'mutate-survive-reproduce' proposal of how all life, including humanity, was created?

Darwin didn't even know about mutation because genetics was only discovered much much later.

See, this is why I tell you to update your information.
There were lots of things that Darwin was wrong or clueless about.

His contribution was the formulation of Natural Selection primarily.

He had no clue on how traits were actually inherited and how changes were introduced in off spring of organisms, because genetics weren't discovered yet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When those cars are manufactured, design is unmistakable, unless one were to believe cars are a product of random production events.

At least try to actually respond to what is being said. I'm not talking about actual cars.
I'm talking about the designs produced by an evolutionary process.

It starts with random polygons and it results in highly specialised designs of polygons that complete the track with extreme success.

And all that is achieved through the process of "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat".

No designers are involved. The process itself is doing the "designing" - if you can call it such.

 

[loveofourlord]

In your post #209, you said..."Sure enough one or more members of the bacteria got a new protein".

Now, was this protein which fixed the flagellum a random production of protein which the flagellum just happened to need and use?

partly, it uses what appears to be the product of a gene duplication, there was a gene that was 30% simular to it having a seperate use, and mutations to both that gene and the gene that was broken preventing the creation of the flagellum allowed the simular gene to take it's place. So you have two sets of mutations allowing for enough of a change to retrofit a fix. Though the gene already had a use, so it wasn't 'designed' as a fix, it was just lucky enough.

This is how evolution works, it takes genes that exist and changes them, or through thigns like gene duplication can change one gene that does one thing, into something else.

This is how platypus venom came about, it's a gene used in the immune system, that through gene duplication was allowed to mutate over generations into a painful venom. Snake venom is simular as many of the genes in snake venom are simular to existing genes and likly a product of gene duplication, the venom sack of a snake, is just a modified saliva gland.

 

[justlookinla]

Darwin didn't even know about mutation because genetics was only discovered much much later.

See, this is why I tell you to update your information.
There were lots of things that Darwin was wrong or clueless about.

His contribution was the formulation of Natural Selection primarily.

He had no clue on how traits were actually inherited and how changes were introduced in off spring of organisms, because genetics weren't discovered yet.

Darwin's basic premise of only naturalistic mechanisms creating all life we observed today (not abiogensis) is till alive and well in the guesses and suppositions of those who embrace one of the views of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

At least try to actually respond to what is being said. I'm not talking about actual cars.
I'm talking about the designs produced by an evolutionary process.

It starts with random polygons and it results in highly specialised designs of polygons that complete the track with extreme success.

And all that is achieved through the process of "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat".

No designers are involved. The process itself is doing the "designing" - if you can call it such.

All the program has done is produce shapes. When those shapes become complex, functional and purposeful creations, design is inherent in the creation.

 

[loveofourlord]

When those cars are manufactured, design is unmistakable, unless one were to believe cars are a product of random production events.

Actually cars ARE created via random production events...ever heard of evolutionary egineering? this is a rather common practice now, where things are designed using the methods of evolution, AKA random changes are done to the model of a car, and tested over and over untill the most efficient car for a given desired trait is found, then produced and tested to see if it works. Only the desired outcome and the start is non random, everything else between is, this has led to inovations that just wouldn't normally come about as they are counter intuiative.

 

[justlookinla]

partly, it uses what appears to be the product of a gene duplication,

And this gene duplication is the product of a programmed process?

there was a gene that was 30% simular to it having a seperate use, and mutations to both that gene and the gene that was broken preventing the creation of the flagellum allowed the simular gene to take it's place. So you have two sets of mutations allowing for enough of a change to retrofit a fix. Though the gene already had a use, so it wasn't 'designed' as a fix, it was just lucky enough.

This is nothing more than a guess.

This is how evolution works, it takes genes that exist and changes them, or through thigns like gene duplication can change one gene that does one thing, into something else.

Right. Macro evolution. There's a world of difference between that and the view that those chance based, random genetic changes produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form.

This is how platypus venom came about, it's a gene used in the immune system, that through gene duplication was allowed to mutate over generations into a painful venom. Snake venom is simular as many of the genes in snake venom are simular to existing genes and likly a product of gene duplication, the venom sack of a snake, is just a modified saliva gland.

Impressive stuff. But no new life forms were created in the process..

 

[justlookinla]

Actually cars ARE created via random production events...ever heard of evolutionary egineering? this is a rather common practice now, where things are designed using the methods of evolution, AKA random changes are done to the model of a car, and tested over and over untill the most efficient car for a given desired trait is found, then produced and tested to see if it works. Only the desired outcome and the start is non random, everything else between is, this has led to inovations that just wouldn't normally come about as they are counter intuiative.

Nope, never heard of that. It would be like engineers saying, let's put the steering wheel in the trunk of the car and see what happens. Gosh durn it, well that didn't work....never saw that coming.