Evolutionary debate

[Hespera]

Indeed, and it's not your place. You don't get to come here and decide what we believe. We made the claim, we define the terms. If you want to criticise our claim, then criticise our claim. Don't make up your own claim with your own terms and attribute it to us; that's called a strawman.

You say we get mad. Well of course we get mad. We get mad when self-righteous Creationists think they can win a debate by making up their own terms and defining themselves right.

You're welcome to debate whether or not there are beneficial mutations, but why should we debate your definition of a beneficial mutation? That's of no concern to us. Yea, there's no 'beneficial mutations' as you define the phrase, but, so what? We didn't claim that there were!

Show me a creationist whose arguments against science are not a discredit to them and their faith, and I will show you a creationist who didnt say anything.

 

[sandwiches]

This is because while there are mutations that kill, mame, disable, allow disease, are disease, and generally screw up an organism royally until the day it dies, there are no such positive counterparts.

What's the mechanism by which bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

 

[sfs]

Whether a variant is termed a mutation or not has nothing to do with whether it's associated with disease (look, for example, at any of the many genome-wide association studies that have been performed in the last few years -- they may use "variant" or they may use "polymorphism", but they don't use "mutation").

Upon further thought, I'd like to qualify this statement a little. What I wrote here reflects current usage in most of human genetics, and in studies of the genetic causes of complex diseases (e.g. cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. ) in particular. The site SkyWriting referenced probably reflects an earlier usage, more commonly seen in descriptions of simple, Mendelian diseases (what are more normally thought of as genetic diseases). Lying behind this usage is that idea that there is a "normal" allele at any locus, with variants represent change, and therefore appropriately called mutations; see here for a brief description of this usage, and why it is no longer considered useful.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What's the mechanism by which bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

Jesusdidit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesusdidit.

If Jesus did it, they wouldn't be antibody-resistant, they would be antibody-proof.

 

[Split Rock]

If Jesus did it, they wouldn't be antibody-resistant, they would be antibody-proof.

If Jesus made antibodies, they would be bacteria-proof. Or if He made antibiotics, they would be bacteria-proof.

 

[SkyWriting]

...Each human acquires roughly 70 mutations when he or she is born...

Kind of hard to separate any "allowed" variation from any imagined random variation though. I don't think we have the process nailed down just yet.

 

[Split Rock]

Kind of hard to separate any "allowed" variation from any imagined random variation though. I don't think we have the process nailed down just yet.

Huh? What is an "allowed" variation? Are you claiming mutations are "imagined?"

 

[sfs]

Kind of hard to separate any "allowed" variation from any imagined random variation though. I don't think we have the process nailed down just yet.

I really have no idea what you mean here. What is "allowed variation", and what "imagined random variation" are you talking about? And what does either one have to do with the measured rate of new mutations in humans?

 

[Split Rock]

Kind of hard to separate any "allowed" variation from any imagined random variation though. I don't think we have the process nailed down just yet.

Do you understand there is no allelic variant or polymorphism that cannot be produced by mutation? Or that many variants are just a few nucleotides different from each other? Is this all just coincidence? How can you possibly claim that we don't "have the process nailed down just yet," when you clearly don't understand what we do know about the process?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand there is no allelic variant or polymorphism that cannot be produced by mutation? Or that many variants are just a few nucleotides different from each other? Is this all just coincidence? How can you possibly claim that we don't "have the process nailed down just yet," when you clearly don't understand what we do know about the process?"

Has it occurred to you that it's still called the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution?

Despite all this knowledge you guys [think you] have on it, it's still a theory.

And that's the only thing right about it -- it's a theory; and theories don't have to be true.

There are four major theories as to how we got our moon -- they can't all be right.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Has it occurred to you that it's still called the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution?

Despite all this knowledge you guys [think you] have on it, it's still a theory.

And that's the only thing right about it -- it's a theory; and theories don't have to be true.

There are four major theories as to how we got our moon -- they can't all be right.

Oh please, AV -- "Evolution is only a theory"?

There was a time when you actually put some effort into your PRATTS -- this one is just plain lazy.

 

[Split Rock]

Has it occurred to you that it's still called the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution?

Despite all this knowledge you guys [think you] have on it, it's still a theory.

And that's the only thing right about it -- it's a theory; and theories don't have to be true.

There are four major theories as to how we got our moon -- they can't all be right.

You know the difference between a Law and a Theory.. stop pretending you do not. You also know what a hypothesis is and how it differs from a theory. What does any of this have to do with your compatriots remarks? That we shouldn't claim any knowledge of genetics so we can bow down to the biblical interpretations of you or dad? Which one of you is the infallible god again? I forget....

 

[Nathan Poe]

You know the difference between a Law and a Theory.. stop pretending you do not.

Ah, but don't forget -- AV proudly admits to wearing his ignorance like a badge -- apparantly when he feels like he's running out of genuine ignorance, he has to make some up to feel better about himself.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know the difference between a Law and a Theory.. stop pretending you do not.

Actually, I don't.

I've been told before, but have forgotten it; and I suspect because the explanation was fuzzy -- too much overlapping with each other or something, so you can't tell where a theory ends and a law begins.

In any event, the moon has four major theories; yet evolution, for some reason, seems to be the only theory you guys will subscribe to when it comes to mankind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh please, AV -- "Evolution is only a theory"?

Yes -- evolution is only a theory.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Has it occurred to you that it's still called the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution?

Despite all this knowledge you guys [think you] have on it, it's still a theory.

And that's the only thing right about it -- it's a theory; and theories don't have to be true.

There are four major theories as to how we got our moon -- they can't all be right.

Has it occurred to you that it's still called the Theory of Evolution because there is no higher echelon it can be promoted to? Has it occurred to you that it's a theory in the same way the chemical theory of atoms is just a theory? Theories are the highest form of proof science can offer - though no doubt you'll interpret this to mean science is fundamentally unreliable and we should baulk at all it offers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Has it occurred to you that it's still called the Theory of Evolution because there is no higher echelon it can be promoted to?

No, it sure hasn't.

Has it occurred to you that it's a theory in the same way the chemical theory of atoms is just a theory?

No, it sure hasn't.

Theories are the highest form of proof science can offer -

What happened to "Law of..." -- as in, "Law of Gravity" or "Laws of Thermodynamics"?

- though no doubt you'll interpret this to mean science is fundamentally unreliable and we should baulk at all it offers.

All I'm saying is that you guys seem to want us to adhere to this one theory, but where are the competing theories?

After all, the moon has four major ones.

Does evolution stand alone?

ETA: And is there something wrong with me questioning this stuff? Am I treading on sacred ground here? Is the Darwin Squad about to issue me a summons?

 

[Belk]

No, it sure hasn't.

No, it sure hasn't.

What happened to "Law of..." -- as in, "Law of Gravity" or "Laws of Thermodynamics"?

All I'm saying is that you guys seem to want us to adhere to this one theory, but where are the competing theories?

After all, the moon has four major ones.

Does evolution stand alone?

ETA: And is there something wrong with me questioning this stuff? Am I treading on sacred ground here? Is the Darwin Squad about to issue me a summons?

Google entry: science law theory explained

Result:About 26,500,000 results (0.43 seconds)

First link: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

 

[AV1611VET]

First link: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

From the link:

A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.

-- I've read this over and over, and still don't get it.