Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[supersport]

1. If you actually look at the details of each fish's color pattern they are different. They are not identical. This type of variation is dependent on the organism, and differs between populations (based on genetic as well as non-genetic factors). In some species color varies more than with other species.

2.If organisms are so very good at altering their phenotype to match their environment, can you explain why the vast majority of species that lived on this planet are extinct?

I'm not following your first paragraph...what does that have to do with what we're talking about?

Why are so many animals extinct? I believe God created the world...and the world had lots more animals at the moment of creation than it does now. Some animals survived, some didn't. However, all we've seen since the Cambrian era is a decline in animals....we havenet seen a build-up and then a decline, only a decline.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Put it this way....according to Toe, mutations are to be random. Evidently different people have different concepts to what this actually means. From what I have gathered and read from evolutionists, randomness means -- or should mean -- indecpendent from environment and independent from the needs of the organism. Thus random mutations happen, and THEN selection sorts through them and picks them through survival of the fittest.

Yup this is basically correct. That is why we use the words Random Mutation AND Natural Selection

But this defies all rationality. Look at a school of fish, for example. If you see a big group of fish swimming together in mass, they're all generally the same color. You don't see a mass of grey fish with random other colors swimming with them, as Toe would suggest. Thus there is nothing random about a school of 1000 fish all being the exact same color....I suggest they all got their color from a directed mutation. (directed by their particular environment)

No your right you don't. That is because of all the random variations that have occured over the years the grey color has been the one selected by nature in that it is the one that has had the most successful reproduction. Ocasionally you will see some other color variant. It will probably stand out from the background due to its difference and hence that fish is more likely to get eaten by a predator, hence that variation will be selected against and is not likely to reproduce as well as the generic grey background. On the other hand maybe there is a variation that induces a slight camoflage effect to the fish. This one will be harder for predators to see and hence is more likely to be able to have little fishies just like him. This means that natural selection will favor this mutation and there will be ever more camo fishies until they are all camo and we are back to the consistant pattern. This seems perfectly rational to me.

So to answer your question, yes, if the sun causes/directs a mutation it would contradict Toe.

Causes does not mean directs. A blinding snowstorm can cause accidents to happen but it does not determine which cars will hit which. This is a fundemental flaw in your logic.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

That first link will tell you...go back and read it. The fact is, the whole arguement revolves around randomness and/or nonrandomness. If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then that would infer direction. Toe, however insists that life is non-directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, to get around direction.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000345-p-4.html this is a description of what randomness means from well-informed evolutionist:

Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous

You apparently have a severe reading comprehension problem. Your quote does a very good job of stating that mutations are random relative to their environment and whether a mutation might be useful. That is what stochastic rather than deterministic means and furthermore, what part of the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous do you not understand.

I don't get it, your own quotes shoot your argument down.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not following your first paragraph...what does that have to do with what we're talking about?

You claimed that all the fish in a population are the same color, indicating that it is the environment that determines such things, not any genetic differences. I am saying that the genetic differences between individuals make them different, despite the fact they are in the same environment.

Why are so many animals extinct? I believe God created the world...and the world had lots more animals at the moment of creation than it does now. Some animals survived, some didn't. However, all we've seen since the Cambrian era is a decline in animals....we havenet seen a build-up and then a decline, only a decline.

This is wrong. There have been a number of extinctions since the Cambrian that resulted in the loss of not only species, but higher taxa such as genera and famalies. These include: Late Ordovician, Late Devonian, End of the Permian, Late Triassic, and end of the Cretaceous Periods. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm
After such extinctions, the number of species increased again.

 

[Vainglorious]

Put it this way....according to Toe, mutations are to be random.

Here is the epicenter of the problem - Evolution Theory requires no such thing - it is irrelevant if mutations are purely random, biased, environmentally driven, or even by Intelligent Design.

From an evolutionary perspective it does not matter how the mutations happen.

 

[Norseman]

Here is an actual link as to why you were banned.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/t156672&page=14

A bit different than your version.

Norm

Your link is broken. Here's the correct link to why he was banned: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3652159&postcount=327

 

[MewtwoX]

That first link will tell you...go back and read it. The fact is, the whole arguement revolves around randomness and/or nonrandomness. If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then that would infer direction. Toe, however insists that life is non-directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, to get around direction.

You seem to be mistaking direction of process with the fact that some environmental stimuli will increase mutation rates. Why would an environment causing more mutations mean the environment causes the useful mutation to occur?

For that matter, why would this mean the organism is being planned for a specific structure (which is the basis for saying Evolution is unguided)?

 

[supersport]

I gave you the cut and paste of what pops up when I try to log in......I wonder what my "disruptive behavior" entailed exactly....I never got an answer for that. I was, on the otherhand, called a liar and cursed at by members.

 

[supersport]

um.....now are you guys going to stick to you guns and say all mutations are random?

The fact is, If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then it would infer direction. Toe, however insists that life is not directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, and that's the point of neo-darwinism in general -- to get around direction. However, look at this quote: (I bought the book tonight.)

When E. coli is grown on glucose or other sources of carbon, very little beta-galactosidse is present and the enzyme is made at a slow, almost undetectable drip. E. coli doesn't waste its energy making enzymes it doesn't need or can't use. But when lactose is added to a bacterial culture and glucose is absent, the rate of enzyme production is cranked up a thousand-fold and its presence can be detected in just three minutes. Somehow the bacterium senses the presence of lactose and is induced to make the right enzyme when it is needed. How can such a simple cell "know" what enzymes to make? (my emphasis) Sean Carrol -- Endless Forms Most Beautiful pg.56

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_...00345-p-4.html

this is a description of what randomness means from a well-informed neodarwin evolutionist:

Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous
-------------------------------

Well I'd say it's about time to pack this thing in and go home. If you are calling that E. coli mutation a random mutation INDEPENDENT of the environment, then I cannot help you. The fact is, no one in their right mind would call that mutation random -- thus the neodarwin theory, as proclaimed by an evolutionist -- and no doubt atheist -- is officially dead.

 

[Vainglorious]

um.....now are you guys going to stick to you guns and say all mutations are random?

The fact is, If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then it would infer direction. Toe, however insists that life is not directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, and that's the point of neo-darwinism in general -- to get around direction.

This was wrong the first time you claimed it and repeating it just makes you look like a goose.

Gee, and you wonder what it is about your behaviour that irritates people.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

um.....now are you guys going to stick to you guns and say all mutations are random?

The fact is, If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then it would infer direction. Toe, however insists that life is not directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, and that's the point of neo-darwinism in general -- to get around direction. However, look at this quote: (I bought the book tonight.)

When E. coli is grown on glucose or other sources of carbon, very little beta-galactosidse is present and the enzyme is made at a slow, almost undetectable drip. E. coli doesn't waste its energy making enzymes it doesn't need or can't use. But when lactose is added to a bacterial culture and glucose is absent, the rate of enzyme production is cranked up a thousand-fold and its presence can be detected in just three minutes. Somehow the bacterium senses the presence of lactose and is induced to make the right enzyme when it is needed. How can such a simple cell "know" what enzymes to make? (my emphasis) Sean Carrol -- Endless Forms Most Beautiful pg.56

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_...00345-p-4.html

this is a description of what randomness means from a well-informed neodarwin evolutionist:

Mutation is random in two senses. First, although we may be able to predict the probability that a certain mutation will occur, we cannot predict which of a large number of gene copies will undergo the mutation. The spontaneous process of mutation is stochastic rather than deterministic. Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous
-------------------------------

Well I'd say it's about time to pack this thing in and go home. If you are calling that E. coli mutation a random mutation INDEPENDENT of the environment, then I cannot help you. The fact is, no one in their right mind would call that mutation random -- thus the neodarwin theory, as proclaimed by an evolutionist -- and no doubt atheist -- is officially dead.

Main Question is what is your point?
This isn't a case of a mutation occuring at the time of the introduction of lalactose if that is what you are intending to imply, rather E. coli already has the ability and the genes necessary to create the enzymes necessary as it states, and they are produced in small quantities but as the ToE would predict, they would not be made unnecessarily and so it takes a few minutes for the cells to ramp up production of the appropriate enzyme. This is an example of a feedback loop not of anything else. It is not phenotypic adaptation. It is not intelligence, it is chemistry. There are however E. coli that cannot metabolise lactose due to mutations that interupt the pathway.

This isn't a problem except in your own mind.

 

[Split Rock]

When E. coli is grown on glucose or other sources of carbon, very little beta-galactosidse is present and the enzyme is made at a slow, almost undetectable drip. E. coli doesn't waste its energy making enzymes it doesn't need or can't use. But when lactose is added to a bacterial culture and glucose is absent, the rate of enzyme production is cranked up a thousand-fold and its presence can be detected in just three minutes. Somehow the bacterium senses the presence of lactose and is induced to make the right enzyme when it is needed. How can such a simple cell "know" what enzymes to make? (my emphasis) Sean Carrol -- Endless Forms Most Beautiful pg.56

Yes, bacteria can detect the presence of lactose. They have tranport proteins that can bring in carbohydrates (imagine that!) and when lactose is brought in it activates the proper enzymes to make use of it. As has already been stated, this is called a Positive Feedback Loop.

Why is it that IDers are always so vey Amazed that organisms can function and carry out metabolism??

Well I'd say it's about time to pack this thing in and go home. If you are calling that E. coli mutation a random mutation INDEPENDENT of the environment, then I cannot help you. The fact is, no one in their right mind would call that mutation random -- thus the neodarwin theory, as proclaimed by an evolutionist -- and no doubt atheist -- is officially dead.

Yes, it is time for you to pack up and go home. You do not seem to understand what mutation, evolution, or phenotypic plasticity are. Nor are you willing to learn.

Declare victory and find a new Forum to troll.

 

[MewtwoX]

Lactose is sensed by a dual action of lactose binding with repressor proteins on the lac operon (forcing them off) and enhancement of the gene sequence by CAP/cAMP cyclization and unification, which increases binding affinity of the Polymerase enzyme.

The mere presence of lactose alone isn't enough because the gene has a low affinity for Polmerase and only basal transcription occurs.

Low glucose levels lead to increased AMP levels and thus increased cAMP levels as ATP -> ADP -> AMP

 

[supersport]

You guys still don't get it.


Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous

 

[supersport]

do you guys agree with this quote by Sean Carrol?:

all complex animals – flies and flycatchers, dinosaurs and trilobites, butterflies and zebras and humans – share a common “tool kit” of “master” genes that govern the formation and patterning of their bodies and body parts. The important point to appreciate from the outset is that its discovery shattered our previous notions of animal relationships and of what made animals different, and opened up a whole new way of looking at evolution.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

You guys still don't get it.


Second, and more importantly, mutation is random in the sense that the chance that a particular mutation will occur is not influenced by whether or not the organism is in an environment in which that mutation would be advantageous

Yes this is true, what is your point?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

do you guys agree with this quote by Sean Carrol?:

all complex animals – flies and flycatchers, dinosaurs and trilobites, butterflies and zebras and humans – share a common “tool kit” of “master” genes that govern the formation and patterning of their bodies and body parts. The important point to appreciate from the outset is that its discovery shattered our previous notions of animal relationships and of what made animals different, and opened up a whole new way of looking at evolution.

If you are referring to hox genes, yes it was a big surprise. I don't know that it shattered anything, rather it made sense in an elegant way how evolution could create the consistant forms we see. Even better, it explains why we don't see a lot of alternate forms. Again not a problem for evolution.

What is your POINT?

 

[supersport]

I love cheese,

well...here's what it says later....

"...the production of this enzyme is controlled by a switch that resides at the beta-galactosidase gene. The switch is off when lactose is absent but flips on when lactose is present. There are two key components of the switch, as protein called lac repressor, and the short stretch of DNA sequence near the beta-galactosidase gene to which the lac repressor protein can bind." pg.60

To me, "flipping a switch" infers triggering a mutation....no?...in fact he even calls it a genetic switch.

The point is, that the mutation would be directed...which falsifies your theory.

 

[supersport]

If you are referring to hox genes, yes it was a big surprise. I don't know that it shattered anything, rather it made sense in an elegant way how evolution could create the consistant forms we see. Even better, it explains why we don't see a lot of alternate forms. Again not a problem for evolution.

What is your POINT?

My point is your whole theory is in shambles. You guys say that tiny, simple, single-celled microbes evolved into more complex creatures over time....this guy says that the tiny microbes had much of the same -- if not all -- of the same DNA that we have today!!!

Your new synthesis has been blown up.

 

[supersport]

Was this really a wormlike animal? (referring to Urbilateria, our 500 million year-old common ancestor)...What might the possession of so many (human-like) genes signify in terms of anatomical and behavioral complexity? That level is somewhat open to different interpretations but we can build up a picture of Urbilateria based on some reasonable inferences……I will have to be tentative here because we can’t and won’t know for certain until we find the fossils. pg. 143 (LOL!! That sounds familiar!)

The uncertainty about Urbilateria is the degree of organization of these cells into organs that we would call eyes, hearts, limbs, etc. The organization was complex enough to lock in the function of Pax-6, Hox genes, etc into roles that have been preserved in all of this ancestor's descendants for more than 500 million years. pg. 145