Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[JedPerkins]

"...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.

It is a genetic switch. It is NOT inducing a mutation. In fact, this isn't mutation at all. This has to do with regulating gene expression, the gene is not changing, just the degree to which the enzyme is expressed. People might be more inclined to take you seriously if you showed that you understood the systems you are talking about.

 

[joey444]

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.

So if someone disagrees, I'm wrong? That sucks...

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

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.

No in this analogy, triggering a mutation would be changing the wiring in the wall, in E. coli, the wiring is already there such that when lactose is present the switch turns on and certain genes are expressed that cause certain enzymes to be produced. There is no change in the genes here and hence no mutation.

That you are fundamentally ignorant of biology, genetics, and evolution is more and more apparent with each post. Stop embarassing yourself and try reading a decent introductory bio textbook. You will find that all of the mechanisms that you think are so problematic are well known and understood. You will also find that what you have been led to believe about the Theory of Evolution is almost totally false.

It is not your fault, especially if you have only been studying it for 6 months and were introduced to AIG and ICR as reputable websites, but the person who recomended them was either also ignorant or worse yet willfully being ignorant. If you think this is all an Evil Atheist Conspiracy, get the Prentice Hall Biology by Ken Miller who I belive is a devout Catholic.

And try a little harder to practice that supposed Christian ethic of humility.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

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.

Yes we do share a lot of genes with bacteria, we also have genes for manufacturing a galactosidase enzmye so that we can also metabolize lactose, interestingly enough, this is a gene that in humans while active at a young age often turns off after early childhood, hence lactose intolerance.

Your bomb is a dud.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

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

Yup sounds about right, that is what the evidence indicates. Maybe you will learn something if you put aside your preconceptions about how you have been told life evolved and what the evidence indicates.

Is your God so weak that he couldn't do it this way?

 

[vipertaja]

Is your God so weak that he couldn't do it this way?

But god is omnipotent! He can be as weak as he wants!

 

[Norseman]

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.

Well, your disruptive behavior on IIDB probably would have gotten you banned here too. For example:

Oh, trust me, I can debate this with facts......

How is death worshipped by the left? Well first of all they're obseessed with digging up dead bones. They're obsessed with digging up dead monkey bones, dead dinosaur bones etc.

Another form of entertainment is exhuming graves and cemetaries. They love this stuff. They love stealing jewlery off dead corpses.

They're also obsessed with digging through skulls and analyzing corpses with picks and chisels.

They also love dead animals and theories that give glory to a dead, demoralizing past.

Genesis is also habitually scoffed at -- the beautiful story of life -- and they try to wiggle their way out of existence by insisting that we're all random accidents. In their mind they need to play like life didn't actually have a true beginning.

But of course it doesn't stop with the science.....

Have you noticed that the hollywood left is obsessd with making movies and documentarys about slaughter?...and how they have a morbid fascination of suffering? How they make so many movies about bloody war? And people dying? And AIDS? Have you noticed how they turn a blind eye to corrupt leaders who execute their own citizens?

Of course abortion (death to infants) is the sacrament of feminism and liberalism.

And the left is also obsessed with sticking up for people who murder people. -- they want THESE people to live, ironically. No death chamber for killers.

And have you noticed how they'd love to make suicide (death to self) legal?

Have you noticed how the notion of Jesus DEFEATING death makes them ill?

On CF, that post probably would have earned you a warning for flaming or for being disruptive. Suffice it to say, claims like these are not exactly conducive to maintaining a peaceful, polite discussion.

 

[nvxplorer]

Oh dear. Evolution is now an evil tool of the "left?"

It's sad the amount of time and energy put into false worldviews. What a waste.

The world does not operate in black-and-white terms, supersport. Never has. Never will. Any and all attempts to portray yourself as the good guy, and everyone who disagrees as the bad guys, is a fundamental error in perception. A true understanding of the world around you requires the ability to see things objectively. By boxing everyone into convienient categories - left vs. right - you preclude yourself from seeing people as they actually are.

 

[fromdownunder]

Norseman, give it up. He is a bit of fun to have around since Dad does not appear to be here any more, and I promise to feed him, bathe him, wash him, take him to the bathroom, and walk him every day. Can't we keep him, for a while Pleeeaaasseee . We need a pet.

And, it will not take long for anybody to realise that he has not got a clue about what he is arguing, and simply stops replying when he is caught out, as he did about his own dog argument on another thread here when I mentioned Dingos.

Just for the lurkers if nothing else. As long as we apply Poe's law, I think we can have an enjoyable time.

Norm

 

[jamie4418]

Evolution is a lie of the devil meant to deceive non christians into believe the Bible is a lie.

However, I will do my best to love those who do propagate this lie. We cannot win by fighting, but we can win by love.

 

[Nooj]

we can win by love.

Evolution is a lie of the devil meant to deceive non christians

You're off to a great start. Oops, sorry I have to go. It's the devil again. He's a real slave-driver you know. Insists on work schedules to take over the world, replace Christianity with atheism etc etc.

 

[fromdownunder]

Evolution is a lie of the devil meant to deceive non christians into believe the Bible is a lie.

OK, and your evidence for this is...

Norm

 

[nvxplorer]

Evolution is a lie of the devil

No, that's evilution. Something entirely different.

 

[Opethian]

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.

This is where you are hideously wrong. A mutation cannot just pop up without a cause. A mutation occurs when DNA is damaged by sources such as sunlight or specific chemicals, or when an error occurs during the copying of DNA strands prior to cell division. But the word "random" has nothing at all to do with the cause of a mutation in the first place. Random means (like people have posted here numerous times before, but in your arrogance and ignorance you have still not gotten this) that prior to the mutation, nobody could possibly predict what the effect of the mutation could be. The mutation could occur anywhere along the DNA strand (obviously certain places would have a higher chance than others because of chemical properties) and so the effect on the organism would not be known. This is what random is about, not that a mutation has to occur without a cause (which would be ridiculous, since everything needs a cause). Saying that something is directed because it has a cause is faulty logic. Claiming that this refutes the evolution theory is bordering on moronity. The reason you do not understand this is because you understand not a single of the basics of evolution. You do not understand what a mutation is. You do not understand what random means in this context. You do not understand what causes mutations. You do not understand what natural selection is and what environment means in this context and interconnected to random. In fact, you don't understand anything at all relevant to this discussion. Yet you maintain being arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

Toe, however insists that life is non-directed. That was the whole point of Origin of Species, to get around direction.

Not at all. The whole point of the origin of species was to propose a mechanism that explains the variety of organisms we observe on this earth today. You see, in sharp contrast with creation "scientists", real scientists don't draw conclusions before their research, and don't try to involve philosophical or religious ideas in their science.

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

Yes, and this is a perfect description. The only problem is the fact that you don't understand what it means, even the part in red that you highlighted. What this red sentence states, is that the mutation is random, if the chance of any mutation occuring, is not influenced by whether or not the effect the mutation will have on the organism is beneficial or not. It says nothing at all about the cause of the mutation, only about the effect, and this effect after the mutation influencing the chance of the mutation occurring (obviously before the mutation). But of course, any person who would understand the basics of evolution, and did not have any preconceived biased notions of what he was trying to achieve, would have understood the text immediately. I guess you are just too ignorant, and too set on your pathetic quest to refute evolution, that you can't even read and understand a simple sentence anymore. You have been brainwashed.

Put it this way....according to Toe, mutations are to be random. Evidently different people have different concepts to what this actually means.

In the context of evolution, it means one thing and only one thing exactly, like I have explained above.

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.

No, it means that the chances of a specific mutation occurring are not influenced by the benefit the organism would obtain from the mutation in its environment after the mutation. Which is exactly what was written in the red text you quoted, but which you failed to understand.

Thus random mutations happen, and THEN selection sorts through them and picks them through survival of the fittest.

Well at least you got one thing right.

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....

What do you know about rates of mutation and the percentage of non-deadly mutations? I suggest you get the timeschale to observe this issue correct. A better idea would be to look at all the different species of fish in the ocean, since they have all evolved from a common ancestor through mutations.

I suggest they all got their color from a directed mutation. (directed by their particular environment)

I suggest you stop spreading nonsense and try to understand and learn about the theory of evolution.

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

No it doesn't. I hope you realise that by now.

Mutations are random; that is, a specific mutation doesn't occur for a specific reason or at a specific time. Mutations occur continually, but exactly what mutation occurs is totally unpredictable, nor do mutations occur because they are needed. Bilogical Anthropology (second edition). Pg 65; Michael Alan Park

Another perfect description of mutations and randomness. Why don't you try to understand it?

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.

Why don't you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinctions
and get your facts straight. Since the Cambrian era there have been a good number of declines and build-ups of species diversity. Please stop wallowing in your own ignorance. It's painful to watch.

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

Obviously, since you still have brought nothing to the table that is relevant to evolution, except misunderstanding of basic TOE fundaments and terms, misunderstanding of your own quotes, and some silly idea that you have actually brought up anything here that poses a problem for TOE.

The fact is, If the environment is shown to cause a mutation to happen then it would infer direction

That's not a fact, it's a false statement caused by ignorance.

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

Now what is the point of this quote? There's no mystery to this. The bacterium senses the presence of lactose by receptor proteines in its cell wall. The receptor proteines have a high affinity for lactose because of their structure, and by reacting with lactose its conformation changes, which induces a change of the part of the receptor protein spanning the inside the cell, if the receptor protein for example spans the entire width of the cell wall (there are other mechanisms known too), which triggers a biochemical cascade with various reporter enzymes which will eventually trigger an increased production of the right enzyme. If you want to know how this goes on in detail, get a college level Microbiology book. There's nothing revolutionary about this, it's been known for many years, and it is thaught in basic Microbiology, Biochemistry and even Biology. Again, you show your ignorance and confusion.

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.

Indeed, it's time for you to head back to Texas. Maybe buy some science books along the way to eliminate a bit of your vast ignorance? If you still not understand what a random mutation is after reading through the first parts of my post, if you still don't understand that every example and quote you brought up did nothing to help your case, except show how ignorant you are on science, and how you can misunderstand even the simplest sentences and concepts, then I'm afraid there's no help possible for you. And if you still think that you have posed even the slightest problem for the TOE, then I guess you need to see a shrink because you might have delusions of grandness and a superiority complex.

 

[Opethian]

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

Try and reread the sentence and understand it, because the only one not getting it in this thread is you.

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

This is what I wrote earlier, only with namings and a bit more into detail. What's the problem?

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

This doesn't even have anything to do with a mutation! It's just a reaction of an organism on a substance in its environment, by stimulating production of an enzyme. Nothing at all changes in its DNA! Yet another fundamental misunderstanding of basic Biology!

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

Sure, since there's not even any mutation going on in this case.

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!!!

You don't have a point at all. First of all, the text below says nothing about microbes, but only of an ancient worm-like creature. Second of all, it says no such thing as it having all of the same DNA we have today, it says that it has a lot of human-like genes, and only in terms of anatomical and behavioral complexity. Do you know how many genes humans have? Do you understand what the word like means? Do you understand what the world complexity means? Then please read the sentence and try to understand it. This poses no problem for TOE at all, it's only an interesting topic and many interesting questions can be posed about it.

Your new synthesis has been blown up.

Of course it has.

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

 

[jamie4418]

I believe evolution IS a lie of the devil.

The fact is, without Jesus Christ, we are all condemned to eternal hell.

I'm not gonna argue about these things. It would only be futile. What I can do is tell people what I believe, and the Holy Spirit will convict. However, another very important thing I must do is LOVE. I need to love everyone as myself.

We are all sinners, and we all need Jesus Christ, or else we are already condemned to eternal hell. I don't want my worst enemy to go there. I would like everyone to accept Jesus and go to heaven.

 

[jamie4418]

The fact is, there IS such a thing as Satan.

He will do whatever it takes to blind us, and drag us down to hell, because he hates us humans with all of his heart because we have been given the opportunity to become children of God through Jesus' death on the cross for us.

The devil is a foe that we as Christians must be eternally vigilant against.

My Christian brothers and sisters, I hope that you don't continue at length about evolution. If you feel up to it, GREAT. For myself, it just causes more hate against my opponent. I don't think hate is good for myself, or the person I'm arguing against. I try to avoid arguements period.

 

[Opethian]

I believe evolution IS a lie of the devil.

I don't.

The fact is, without Jesus Christ, we are all condemned to eternal hell.

That's not a fact, it's an opinion.

I'm not gonna argue about these things. It would only be futile. What I can do is tell people what I believe, and the Holy Spirit will convict. However, another very important thing I must do is LOVE. I need to love everyone as myself.

So why are you writing this and not loving someone?

We are all sinners, and we all need Jesus Christ, or else we are already condemned to eternal hell. I don't want my worst enemy to go there. I would like everyone to accept Jesus and go to heaven.

Put "I believe" in front of that sentence and you are right. But anyways, you can both be a christian and accept TOE, so why don't you? What are your reasons for believing evolution is a lie of the devil? And what are your reasons for not trying to educate yourself on the subject? Even if you are opposed to something, you can always document yourself on the subject and learn about it.

 

[Opethian]

The fact is, there IS such a thing as Satan.

Again, that's not a fact, it's an opinion (or imaginary fantasy, if you like).

He will do whatever it takes to blind us, and drag us down to hell, because he hates us humans with all of his heart because we have been given the opportunity to become children of God through Jesus' death on the cross for us.

The devil is a foe that we as Christians must be eternally vigilant against.

My Christian brothers and sisters, I hope that you don't continue at length about evolution. If you feel up to it, GREAT. For myself, it just causes more hate against my opponent. I don't think hate is good for myself, or the person I'm arguing against. I try to avoid arguements period.

What's wrong with rational arguments? What's wrong with thinking? Why do some of you seem to think being educated and understanding how the world works is such a bad thing? Because being educated and acquiring knowledge leads to understanding why religion is so useless and damaging to humans and this world in general? Probably.

 

[jamie4418]

Religion maybe useless, but loving our neighbour as ourselves is not useless. Truth is not useless.

I hope you find the truth that you are looking for Opethian.

At one time, I too hated Christianity. I hated it. I even wanted to destroy it. I wanted to argue with every Christian I could and win the arguement and show them how stupid their faith was. I hated Christians because I thought they were instilling fear into people so that people couldn't enjoy their lives.

But I could only fight the Holy Spirit for so long. Thank the Lord that he convinced me of the truth.