Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

[caravelair]

The reason is that they haven't ever evolved from them.

did you miss the part where i used the word observed? please read the page i linked to. we directly observed the evolution occuring. this is not based on inference. it is fact.

If they had we really should have a lot of transitional fossils,

we have something better than fossils, we have the actual organisms themselves and we have their DNA. remember, this is based on direct observation.

a lot of species that have evolved and then reverted back,

what? why would evolution require that? i don't get it.

and of course a huge number of "attempts" that have succeeded only partly or even failed fully (these should be a vast majority of species).

what? i don't understand why you think this should be.

Now those fossils that have been found are better understood to describe different "kinds"

what is a "kind"? how do i know if 2 animals are the same "kind" or not?

which then have lost some parts of their genetic capacity through mutations, isolation and natural selection.

what do you mean by "lost some parts of their genetic capacity"?

This has led to "new" species.

that's not what happened in the examples i linked to.

 

[Ondoher]

I'm not geneticist but I think there is one significant mistake in your analogy. Mutations are random, right? So let's think you guessed right on your billion-and-first attempt (that kind of number of attempts would require very long time periods, wouldn't it). But if there were all those attempts and then you finally succeeded, what would happen after it? Could you then move on? I think you couldn't. The next thing you would do would probably take you back to the previous level.

Remember that mutations happen between generations, and most mutations are neutral. A beneficial mutation in one generation will likely be passed on to the next generation. This beneficial mutation, because it improves the chances for reproductive success (by definition) will tend to propagate in the population. If in a later generation there is a mutation detrimental to reproductive success in an ancestor of the original with the beneficial mutation, then that mutation, because it decreases the chances of reproductive success (by defintion) will tend to get weeded out of the population, while the remaining members of the population with the beneficial mutation go on being more successful.

This is natural selection.

If you gained something for a moment, you would anyway lose it through those copying mistakes in the future. So your success on your billion-and-first attempt would become totally useless and you were to start again from your starting point. In addition to this, I think you are overestimating the efficiency of natural selection: all damaging mutations aren't lost that way you described, there are for example many diseases that have come to be through mutations.

Certain types of genetic disorders, such as Downs, are known to happen spontaneously, and are not inherited. Other kinds are recessive, where a single copy of the allele is either not detrimental, or in some cases, such a sickle cell, are actually beneficial.

 

[Tomk80]

Certain types of genetic disorders, such as Downs, are known to happen spontaneously, and are not inherited. Other kinds are recessive, where a single copy of the allele is either not detrimental, or in some cases, such a sickle cell, are actually beneficial.

Actually, Downs is inherited too.

 

[Randall McNally]

Actually, Downs is inherited too.

Inherited Down's is very rare. Most cases are spontaneous with no family history.

 

[Tomk80]

Inherited Down's is very rare. Most cases are spontaneous with no family history.

Hmmm, I seem to recall differently. Got any sources or something I can look into?

 

[Randall McNally]

Hmmm, I seem to recall differently. Got any sources or something I can look into?

http://www.thedoctorsdoctor.com/diseases/down_syndrome.htm

True trisomies in most cases result from nondisjunction during maternal meiosis. The inherited cases appear to be caused by a Robertsonian Translocation.

 

[Tomk80]

http://www.thedoctorsdoctor.com/diseases/down_syndrome.htm

True trisomies in most cases result from nondisjunction during maternal meiosis. The inherited cases appear to be caused by a Robertsonian Translocation.

Thanks for the link. It really contains mucho interesting stuff.

 

[h2whoa]

I'm not geneticist but I think there is one significant mistake in your analogy. Mutations are random, right?

My analogy was exactly that... an analogy. Of course trying to guess a password is not the same as mutation and heritability. That's not what I was trying to get across (I mean who has got the time to sit there and have 1 billion and 1 attempts at a password?!).

The point, was that once the password works, that's it. All the previous errors don't matter.

It's the same thing for mutations. Once a mutations occurs that offers some form of reproductive advantage, either directly or indirectly, all the deleterious errors in all the other organisms of that species up to that point mean nothing (don't forget as well that we're not talking about a load of mutations occurring in one individual). In fact they mean nothing as soon as they've passed out of the gene pool.

That was the point.

Another analogy is this. If I try throwing peanuts into a jar on the other side of the room, with my eyes shut, chances are most of those peanuts are not going in. The majority of peanuts will end up on the floor. However, if I throw 1000 peanuts at the jar, some will go in, let's say maybe 10 (for sake argument). That jar now contains peanuts. Therefore it would be incorrect to make the following statement:

"There is no way that this jar could go from an empty jar to a jar that contains peanuts by standing on the other side of the room with your eyes shut and trying to throw peanuts in. The majority of throws are bad throws therefore there is no way that this jar will end up containing peanuts".

Same deal.

h2

 

[reconciliation]

No you're either very wrong or just plain lying. There are no geneticists who believe that there are no mutations that really increase mutation. This is simply a lie.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

So who was ignorant after all? Here is a scientist who holds a Ph. D. in genetics and who says that mutations "always involve loss of information and never gain". Could he have put it more plainly? I wonder if you really believed that such geneticist wouldn't exist, or did you just lie wilfully?

Anyway, that's a clear evidence that there are such geneticists who don't believe in real increase in information through mutations as there are also many other scientists who think the same way.

 

[h2whoa]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

The only point at which he is technically correct when he says "no further increase was possible" is when he is giving a rather simplisitic view on recombination. Which is not strictly mutation anyway. However, I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that additive mutations do indeed happen. Please refer to my sources below. With this in mind the "prof" is either a terrible geneticist or deliberately lying in his article (I know what I think). Because they do happen. If you would only refer to my sources below.

Further to this, I did a little search for this Emmanuel College in Georgia. So far I can't actually find it. I've found Emmanuel College. A Catholic college with no listing for a staff member with the surname of Lester. Interestingly enough, this Boston-based Catholic college runs a course in it's biology department on Evolution:

"BIOL1106 + Introduction to Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (SI-L)
This course surveys the kinds of living organisms found on the planet and investigates the evolutionary relationship between them. Emphasis is placed on structure, function and experimentation at the organismal level. Although this course is the logical successor to BIOL1105, there is no requirement that BIOL1105 precede it. Three hours lecture, three hours laboratory."

Even more interesting is this little note under it: "Required of all biology majors, unless exempted by departmental permission". Intriguing. So it's clearly not this Emmanuel college that he is a professor at.

Actually: HOLD THE PHONE!

I think I've just found this esteemed institution. Ha! This Emmanuel College has the webpage: http://www.emmanuelcollege.edu/homepage/mane/ as opposed to the slightly more reputable instituion's: http://www.emmanuel.edu/

Yes suddenly it is all becoming clear.

So, we have "Prof" Lester, at a private evangelical degree-churner *cough* sorry, instituion. And this Instituion gives itself an identical name to another college and a very similar web address? Come off it man.

I checked out Prof Lester's publication record (in terms of scientific journals).

He doesn't actually appear to have one as far as I can see. Odd for a professor.

Wow. The world of genetics really is turning against evolution.

By the way, I notice you still haven't responded to THIS POST. The post in which I gave you real evidence, from journals no less, that you are just simply wrong. However, seeing as you willfully ignored it last time, here's what I said again:

Now, moving on to the idea that all mutations result in a loss of information.

Hmmmm. Duplication and insertion mutations. The names should tell you something.

Anyway, I'll let you trawl through the 3706 pages of references from the link here. I dare say some of the references won't be relevant but you'll find a few.

Such as:

Novel case of dup(3q) syndrome due to a de novo interstitial duplication 3q24-q26.31 with minimal overlap to the dup(3q) critical region.
Meins M, Hagh JK, Gerresheim F, Einhoff E, Olschewski H, Strehl H, Epplen JT.
Am J Med Genet. 2004 Nov 18.

Small de novo duplication in the repeat region of the TATA-box-binding protein gene manifest with a phenotype similar to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
Shatunov A, Fridman E, Pagan F, Leib J, Singleton A, Hallett M, Goldfarb L.
Clin Genet. 2004 Dec;66(6):496-501.

Or this.

Or this (mentions gene duplication).

Or this.

Or this.

I'll let you find some more.

Some diseases that may be familiar are as a result of an increase in DNA that, in these particular cases, are detrimental.

Down's syndrome: you get an extra Chromosome 21 (Down's is also known as trisomy 21).

Huntington's: tri-nucleotide repeat sequence increases beyond a critical point causing disease.

Although these are examples of it causing disease, I picked them because I thought people might be familiar with the conditions. They show that yes, DNA can be added.

But I'll let you tell the mother of a kid with Down's that they can't really be ill because your unpublished academic at this laughably parasitic (in terms of name hogging) college says it can't be so.

h2

 

[Tomk80]

I checked out Prof Lester's publication record (in terms of scientific journals).

He doesn't actually appear to have one as far as I can see. Odd for a professor.

I checked also using medline and pubmed. Lots of Lesters, though none named LP Lester as far as I can see. The only LP Lester I found published an article in 1976 which was not about genetics at all. Now, this is at least a bit odd. I don't know what the requirements for a PhD are in other countries, but in the Netherlands PhD's (at least in my field of research) usually have to publish at least a few articles before being able to claim the title. Quite a number of Masters students (at least at Maastricht university) who want to do research already produce scientific articles as spinoffs from their masters thesis, although this isn't required. So when someone actually claims to be a professor and one is not able to find articles from him this is at least a bit strange.

A question for the Phd's on this board. Is publishing in a scientific article a requirement to finish your Phd?

 

[h2whoa]

A question for the Phd's on this board. Is publishing in a scientific article a requirement to finish your Phd?

Whilst it's not an actual requirment, it almost goes without saying. If you generate any results that are worthy of inclusion in a thesis then they are certainly worthy of being published in a paper. I should be getting a paper published in about 6 months I would think. So it is very odd indeed.

I went through and checked all the authors listed as "Lester, L" (I excluded any with any other initial after L, except for P and there were no LPs) and not one was listed at an Emmanuel College. Very, very odd.

h2

 

[Tomk80]

Whilst it's not an actual requirment, it almost goes without saying. If you generate any results that are worthy of inclusion in a thesis then they are certainly worthy of being published in a paper. I should be getting a paper published in about 6 months I would think. So it is very odd indeed.

I went through and checked all the authors listed as "Lester, L" (I excluded any with any other initial after L, except for P and there were no LPs) and not one was listed at an Emmanuel College. Very, very odd.

h2

What about Perdue University, which is where he got his Phd. Since it happen often that researchers keep on working at the university where they graduated (at least for a short while), he might have published something from there. I mean, they usually don't ask you to become a professor unless you have been noticed with the research you performed.

 

[h2whoa]

I mean, they usually don't ask you to become a professor unless you have been noticed with the research you performed.

Well this is my point. I don't think the name-parasite Emmanuel College in Franklin Springs can require very much to become a professor. This guy has no publication record at all (I still can't find any papers listed by the chap at Purdue). Here are the listings I got from a more complete database than PubMed for papers with a Lester as an author and Purdue as the address (years 1954-present):

Harkless JAW, Rodriguez JH, Mitas L, et al.

A quantum Monte Carlo and density functional theory study of the electronic structure of peroxynitrite anion
J CHEM PHYS 118 (11): 4987-4992 MAR 15 2003

McCafferty WP, Meyer MD, Lester GT Significant range extensions for southwestern Nearctic mayflies (Ephemeroptera : Baetidae)
ENTOMOL NEWS 113 (3): 211-214 MAY-JUN 2002

CUNDY VA, MORSE JS, LESTER TW, et al. AN INVESTIGATION OF A NEAR - STOICHIOMETRIC CH4/CCL4/AIR PREMIXED FLAT FLAME
CHEMOSPHERE 16 (5): 989-1001 1987

LESTER BR, CHERRY JH PURIFICATION OF LEUCINE TRANSFER-RNA ISOACCEPTING SPECIES FROM SOYBEAN COTYLEDONS .1. BENZOYLATED DIETHYLAMINO CELLULOSE FRACTIONATION, N-HYDROXYSUCCINIMIDE MODIFICATION, AND CHARACTERIZATION OF PRODUCT
PLANT PHYSIOL 63 (1): 79-86 1979

LESTER BR, MORRIS RO, CHERRY JH PURIFICATION OF LEUCINE TRANSFER-RNA ISOACCEPTING SPECIES FROM SOYBEAN COTYLEDONS .2. RPC-2 PURIFICATION, RIBOSOME BINDING, AND CYTOKININ CONTENT
PLANT PHYSIOL 63 (1): 87-92 1979

WITTIG SLK, LESTER TW RADICAL AND CHEMI-ION PRECURSORS - ELECTRIC-FIELD EFFECTS IN SOOT NUCLEATION
ABSTR PAP AM CHEM S 172 (SEP3): 39-39 1976

WITTIG SLK, MEDWID WA, LESTER TW PYROLYSIS OF NORMAL-BUTANE - ANALYSIS OF SINGLE-PULSE SHOCK-TUBE EXPERIMENTS
B AM PHYS SOC 19 (10): 1148-1148 1974

LESTER TW, WITTIG SLK SHOCK-TUBE STUDY OF KINETICS OF SOOT FORMATION IN HYDROCARBON COMBUSTION
B AM PHYS SOC 19 (10): 1148-1149 1974

LESTER TW, ZALLEN DM, WITTIG SLK CHEMI-IONIZATION IN SHOCK-INDUCED HYDROCARBON COMBUSTION .1. ION CONCENTRATIONS IN METHANE-AIR
COMBUST SCI TECHNOL 7 (5): 219-225 1973

ZALLEN DM, WITTIG SLK, LESTER TW DILUENT EFFECTS ON CHEMI-IONIZATION IN METHANE COMBUSTION
B AM PHYS SOC 18 (11): 1482-1482 1973

The Lester on the first listing (that you can't see on abbreviated form) is a Lester WA.

So. Odd odd odd. Hmmmm.

h2

 

[reconciliation]

I don't think the name-parasite Emmanuel College in Franklin Springs can require very much to become a professor.

Anyway, Lester is geneticist, and your claim was that no geneticist could think as he does. I think you might find some other geneticists (professors) by this website who agree with him.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

 

[h2whoa]

Anyway, Lester is geneticist, and your claim was that no geneticist could think as he does. I think you might find some other geneticists (professors) by this website who agree with him.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Don't just hand wave this. And have you addressed the sources I gave you twice? Nope. Could you please.

It's not theory. It's fact. It is not just hypothesised. It is observed. But you keep ignoring it if it makes your little world easier to live in.

h2

 

[reconciliation]

And have you addressed the sources I gave you twice? Nope. Could you please.

It's not theory. It's fact. It is not just hypothesised. It is observed.

First, I'm not geneticist and so I'm not the best person to address those sources (I could of course answer them after I would have investigated the claims and found out the answers but now I don't have time or interest to do so). You may find some of your answers by reading those articles at the website I gave.

Second, if it was certainly observed, there wouldn't be such scientists as Lane Lester. Btw, our observations can almost always be interpreted in many different ways, you just choose one of them (many scientists disagree with you on this).

 

[h2whoa]

First, I'm not geneticist and so I'm not the best person to address those sources (I could of course answer them after I would have investigated the claims and found out the answers but now I don't have time or interest to do so).

There's no point discussing this any further. You ask refuse to look at the evidence, basically, because you're not interested. So really, what's the point? That list that AiG provides, is a)not restricted to geneticists; b)known to be fake in some places, or include people with false claims of educaiton; c) not actually making reference to the addition mutation argument, just people who hold their religious interpretation over their scientific knowledge.

As established Lane Lester is not much of a scientist and actively deceives in is article. It is fact. It is seen.

Anyway, this debate is over. Stonewalling by refusing to look at the evidence is not conducive to a reasoned argument.

Bye.

h2

 

[Vance]

This is an example of what YEC's have to resort to (both over at AiG and on this forum) to maintain their position.

 

[reconciliation]

also not all areas have undergone erosion, so what is your point?

If erosion hasn't taken place everywhere, there is a very understandable explanation: the Earth isn't so old that there would have been time for erosion to happen everywhere. Totally consistent with young earth.

strawman. polystrate fossils have been understood for over a hundred years.

That was no answer. As well I could say that your arguments have been understood for a long time.

which salt? if you are talking lead salts, then the earth is only a few hundred years old, other salts, such as sodium chloride are being removed from the oceans.

So you admit that the amount of salt contradicts billions of years? If it gives ages like a few hundred years, they are much easily understood with YEC than ToE.