If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

[Loudmouth]

Thanks, Tomk80, I think you have got it. If a single photon of radiation was the cause of an error in replication, then you cannot say it has been directly observed unless you saw the photon hit during the process of replication, and knock something askew.

So what would convince you that radiation causes mutations?

But if that's all you saw, don't call the mutation "random" For that you need to know where it came from. Maybe it was directed by humans following Hiroshima. If so, it might still be random as to which gene the photon hit, kind of like the roulette wheel ball. But if a human directed the photon at a particular gene for the purpose of creating the mutation, then the mutation clearly was not random. I do not know whether we have that ability yet.

It's much easier to insert mutations through PCR techniques.

I am not well versed on what causes mutations. I assume that things other than errant radiation photons can do it. But whatever does it, you've got to directly sense it to directly observe it. Don't say you have, if you haven't.

This is meaningless to the debate. We know that polymerases, uv radiation, and chemical mutagens change DNA sequences. These are simple facts that don't require direct observation, just as the idea of water coming from the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen does not require direct observation of the atoms combining to make water molecules.

 

[SamCJ]

I'll ask again. Could you please define what you mean by "directly observe". Does this definition require us to actually see atoms interacting? If so, could you please show me the equipment that one would use to do this.

Geez you're exasperating. Why do I have to read the dictionary for you?
Merriams: direct: stemming immediately from a source.
directly: in a direct manner; in immediate physical contact; without delay; immediately.
observe: to watch carefully, esp. with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

So, combining: to directly observe means: to watch carefully while in immediate physical contact; without delay, especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

Now, if those who claim it has been done meant something different from that obvious definition, you prove they meant something different and that they intended their listeners to understand something different. Unless you can make a reasonable argument that the talkers and the listeners all knew it meant something different from the Merriam's dictionary definition, then the statement was a lie.

 

[Loudmouth]

Geez you're exasperating. Why do I have to read the dictionary for you?
Merriams: direct: stemming immediately from a source.
directly: in a direct manner; in immediate physical contact; without delay; immediately.
observe: to watch carefully, esp. with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

So, combining: to directly observe means: to watch carefully while in immediate physical contact; without delay, especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

Now, if those who claim it has been done meant something different from that obvious definition, you prove they meant something different and that they intended their listeners to understand something different. Unless you can make a reasonable argument that the talkers and the listeners all knew it meant something different from the Merriam's dictionary definition, then the statement was a lie.

Ok, let's go through this.

direct: stemming immediately from a source.
directly: in a direct manner; in immediate physical contact; without delay; immediately.

If I start a PCR reaction with a specific sequence and immediately sequence the new DNA strands produced by the polymerase then I have directly measured mutations.

observe: to watch carefully, esp. with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

This would require me to use a good, solid methodology for detecting the difference between the DNA at the start and the DNA at the end of a PCR run.

Therefore, carefully detecting changes in DNA sequence immediately after DNA replication would cound as direct observation of mutation.

 

[SamCJ]

Ok, let's go through this.

direct: stemming immediately from a source.
directly: in a direct manner; in immediate physical contact; without delay; immediately.

If I start a PCR reaction with a specific sequence and immediately sequence the new DNA strands produced by the polymerase then I have directly measured mutations.

observe: to watch carefully, esp. with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment.

This would require me to use a good, solid methodology for detecting the difference between the DNA at the start and the DNA at the end of a PCR run.

Wrong. It requires you to see the change being made. You have completely failed to point to any definition that would allow "directly observe" the mutation to be intended by the talkers or understood by the listeners in the manner you have described; i.e., compare a later one with an earlier one and you have done it. That is crap, and you know it.

 

[SamCJ]

So, what's your point? Determining whether something is random or not, is not done through determining there cause. It's done through counting the effect. We can directly count the effect. See Luria Delbruck.

The absurd arguments with my position have gone on so long that your questioning the point is understandable. This thread was begun with the lie that people who say a beneficial random mutation has NOT been directly observed are liars. Following a lot of atheistic, orgiastic backslapping, someone, AronRa if I recall, asked what lies to we all-truthful atheistic evolutionists ever tell, so I pointed out two of them. We have been dealing with the first.

 

[SamCJ]

look carefully at what you are asking for.


let's take a reasonable example of a mutation. say the point mutation that causes Tay-Sachs, which we know is caused by a mutated form of beta-hexosaminidase A.

look at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12689698&dopt=Abstract

say you are the investigator for this particular mutation.
when did it happen?
not in the children you are looking at.
but in their parents or ancestors.

now you just discovered this mutation because of the phenotypic effects of it. The kids are sick, very sick and will probably die.

but the mutation is at least one generation back in the chain. you can probably test the parents. one of them is most likely a carrier of the trait.

but how do you look at the genes of long dead ancestors? you know the mutation occurred, you can see and quanitize it in the DNA of the patients.

see what you are asking for?
now you can take a fruit fly, harvest some cells, do a PCR and then separate the watson and crick chains of the DNA. then subject that fruit fly to radiation and take some of these new cells, do the same thing and see if the irradiated DNA anneals exactly right with the old. you can catch a mutation happening this way.
but it is not a "natural mutation"

see what I mean, do you really realize what you are asking?

....

Yes, I do realize what I am asking, but what I am asking is not what you think I am asking.

You and I agree (I think) that it would be virtually impossible to directly observe a random beneficial mutation in the act of its making. I am not asking that it be directly observed. I believe the evidence that it does occur is pretty darn good even though it has not been directly observed.

So what am I asking? I am asking for something very simple. I am asking that some of the evolutionists on this site stop claiming that a random beneficial mutation has been directly observed, and that the same group stop calling the people who deny such an observation liars. That's not too much to ask, is it?

 

[Caphi]

Wrong. It requires you to see the change being made. You have completely failed to point to any definition that would allow "directly observe" the mutation to be intended by the talkers or understood by the listeners in the manner you have described; i.e., compare a later one with an earlier one and you have done it. That is crap, and you know it.

So Sam, what would you accept for direct observation? Taking a tachyon microscope or some equally unbuildable instrument and watching the molecules break and rejoin? Pah. You made a request, Loudmouth complied with it, and you stuck your fingers in your ears and refused to listen.

 

[BVZ]

Sam, I think I know what you are trying to say. However, I am not sure why you are saying it.

What you are saying is this:
No mutation has ever been directly observed.

Everyone agrees with this, because it is TRUE. Why? Because NOTHING can be directly observed.

Example: You light a piece of dynamite on a long fuse, and observe the explosion. You did not directly observe anything. All you can see is the electromagnetic radiotion generated by the explosion (light) hitting your retinas, and generating electrical/chemical impulses that travel along your nerves. Basically, the light from the explosion (and some time later the sound) is evidence of the explosion, which you interpret, and come to the conclusion that the explosion has occurred. You don't see the explosion directly.

The detection of mutations work the same way. You don't directly observe the mutation. What you DO observe, is the evidence of that mutation. In the explosion example, you can also come back in a month and see the scarring of the earth, and you could gather soil samples and analyse them chemically to determine the type of explosives used. Note, nothing is observed directly. But the existence of the explosion as well as the mutation can be verified by looking at the evidence.

You say that no mutation has ever been 'directly observed'. You are correct. However, I don't see how this applies to the OP.

Even though you don't directly observe the mutation, does not mean the mutation does not exist.

 

[Tomk80]

Wrong. It requires you to see the change being made. You have completely failed to point to any definition that would allow "directly observe" the mutation to be intended by the talkers or understood by the listeners in the manner you have described; i.e., compare a later one with an earlier one and you have done it. That is crap, and you know it.

No, I don't know it. To me, that's as directly observed as need be. The reason for this is one that I asked you before. Give me one scientific fact that clearly is based on 'direct observation' as you understand it.

Besides, this is a pretty useless line of reasoning. What I have described would be counted as direct observation by anyone except the ones most needing to make some inanne point (ie, you). You'll have to admit that observing the effects before and after a mutation, with knowing there couldn't be anything in between but that mutation, is pretty darn direct. It's as direct as seeing hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water and most people would have no problem calling that a 'direct observation' also.

On a different point, you're getting your threads mixed up. This thread was set up with the central question:
How valid is the claim:
"Since mutations cannot be observed directly, they do not exist."

I think the 'point' you're trying to make is an inherent meaningless one, because it really doesn't matter whether something is directly or indirectly observed in the manner you describe. Heck, I think it's even completely irrelevant if we use what I see as directly observe (ie, look before, look after, changed? --> directly observed). What matters is whether the theory fits the evidence, no matter whether this evidence is directly or indirectly observed. The evidence points to mutations occurring randomly. Whether that is through direct or indirect measurements, is really uninteresting.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Wrong. It requires you to see the change being made.

Now I think I understand your point, it is a fallacious one. You seem to want to redefine the scientific method so that “observed” means that we actually happen to be there as the event occurs rather than observing the result of the event.

When we say we have observed mutation we mean that we can observe the phenotypical changes that the mutation has caused. This is how the method works. Its how its always worked. So when people say we have observed mutation, this is quite correct in the sense that the scientific method uses the term.

By your restrictive definition of observed I’ve never observed the changes in legislation in the UK because I’ve not been in parliament when they were enacted.

Ghost

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

renee decartes stated "i think therefore i am"... he was trying to find a reasoning bhind his existence...and of course God comes to mind...no he reasoned that how could we humans we imperfect minds think of a being that had a perfect mind...so he granted that God had to plant the idea in someones head.

so now God is responsible for all thoughts put in people's heads, and bein gthe nice guy He is, He isnt going to give you bad thoughts and ideas...this is where the imperfect human mind comes in with an imperfect understanding of the idea god gave you...

so now lets say God gave Darwin an idea...whatever it might be, and Darwin misunderstood, got carried away with his "theory"...it would make none of it true, except the basic premise that god gave him as an idea...

 

[Caphi]

renee decartes stated "i think therefore i am"... he was trying to find a reasoning bhind his existence...and of course God comes to mind...no he reasoned that how could we humans we imperfect minds think of a being that had a perfect mind...so he granted that God had to plant the idea in someones head.

That's not what Descartes said at all. In essence, what he said was that it was possible that all of his surroundings and sensations were illusions created by an all-powerful demon for the demon's own purposes. He then considered what such a philosophical standpoint would entail. Finally, he concluded that there was one thing that he could consider true - the statement "I exist" was necessarily true if put forward by his mind.

Nice try revising history, though.

 

[Dannager]

renee decartes stated "i think therefore i am"... he was trying to find a reasoning bhind his existence...and of course God comes to mind...no he reasoned that how could we humans we imperfect minds think of a being that had a perfect mind...so he granted that God had to plant the idea in someones head.

You never studied Descartes, did you?

 

[corvus_corax]

The whole "if you cant see it, if you cant observe it, it must not be true" fallacy was belied by my youngest son tonight.

My dear sweet 6 year old blew my mind tonight.
Now, you have to consider several things about him...
1- He firmly believes in Santa Claus
2- He firmly believes in God (as in "the guy that made everything")
3- Likewise his belief in the Tooth Fairy
4- Likewise his belief in the Easter Bunny (although he debates the existence of this last entity)
All in all, my son is very "typical" for a 6 year old

Yet his reasoning capabilities astound me time and time again.

Tonight, I told him I was going to change the toilet seat from blue to black "by magic". "Abracadabra" I said.
He watched me lock myself in the bathroom.
5 minutes later, after finishing his dinner, he knocked on the bathroom door, and I opened the door.
Voila! The formerly ugly-as-sin blue toilet seat and cover was "magically" replaced with a new, sleek looking "black mahogany" (or some such) toilet seat and cover.

Did he buy it?
Not for a second.

He believes in God, he believes in Santa Claus,. he believes in FAIRIES for crying out loud, but there was no way (in his mind) that those posed a more reasonable explanation than me replacing the seat in question.

"Fine" I replied, "If I replaced it, then where is the blue seat? And where did the black one come from?"
Please note the blue seat was nowhere to be visually seen from his short POV, and he had never seen the black one.

After examining the bathroom for a few seconds, he came to the conclusion that I must have placed the old seat in the cupboards far above his head and that I likewise got the black seat from the same location.
He had me, down to the last detail.

"But, God could have done it, yes? Or perhaps the Easter Bunny...after all, it's getting pretty close to Easter" I said, hoping to put a kink in his reasoning.
"They COULD have" he calmly replied "But it makes more sense that YOU did it. You came in the bathroom, when you opened the door, I saw YOU"
"But you cant see God" I again replied, "and youve never seen the Easter Bunny"
"But you changing the seats makes more sense" he again stated, inadvertently applying Occam's razor.

He looked at the evidence and he could have said "Santa did it, God did it, or the Bunny did it". But instead he applied the most reasonable (given objective empirical evidence) explanation.


Id like to say, just in passing, that he also finds the basic concepts of evolutionary theory as "making more sense" than "poofing" things into existence. He's a TE at the tender age of 6 simply because, due to the evidence he's seen, combined with his belief in God, the ToE as something "God would do, easy", makes more sense than "poofing" entire animals out of thin air.

Im not saying he's a brilliant scientist or anything. I am saying that he's more of a scientist than those who assert "Evolution has never been observed, therefore it cant be true" (which is wrong on more than one count)

Viva la 6 year olds!!

 

[Beastt]

The whole "if you cant see it, if you cant observe it, it must not be true" fallacy was belied by my youngest son tonight.

My dear sweet 6 year old blew my mind tonight.
Now, you have to consider several things about him...
1- He firmly believes in Santa Claus
2- He firmly believes in God (as in "the guy that made everything")
3- Likewise his belief in the Tooth Fairy
4- Likewise his belief in the Easter Bunny (although he debates the existence of this last entity)
All in all, my son is very "typical" for a 6 year old

Yet his reasoning capabilities astound me time and time again.

Tonight, I told him I was going to change the toilet seat from blue to black "by magic". "Abracadabra" I said.
He watched me lock myself in the bathroom.
5 minutes later, after finishing his dinner, he knocked on the bathroom door, and I opened the door.
Voila! The formerly ugly-as-sin blue toilet seat and cover was "magically" replaced with a new, sleek looking "black mahogany" (or some such) toilet seat and cover.

Did he buy it?
Not for a second.

He believes in God, he believes in Santa Claus,. he believes in FAIRIES for crying out loud, but there was no way (in his mind) that those posed a more reasonable explanation than me replacing the seat in question.

"Fine" I replied, "If I replaced it, then where is the blue seat? And where did the black one come from?"
Please note the blue seat was nowhere to be visually seen from his short POV, and he had never seen the black one.

After examining the bathroom for a few seconds, he came to the conclusion that I must have placed the old seat in the cupboards far above his head and that I likewise got the black seat from the same location.
He had me, down to the last detail.

"But, God could have done it, yes? Or perhaps the Easter Bunny...after all, it's getting pretty close to Easter" I said, hoping to put a kink in his reasoning.
"They COULD have" he calmly replied "But it makes more sense that YOU did it. You came in the bathroom, when you opened the door, I saw YOU"
"But you cant see God" I again replied, "and youve never seen the Easter Bunny"
"But you changing the seats makes more sense" he again stated, inadvertently applying Occam's razor.

He looked at the evidence and he could have said "Santa did it, God did it, or the Bunny did it". But instead he applied the most reasonable (given objective empirical evidence) explanation.


Id like to say, just in passing, that he also finds the basic concepts of evolutionary theory as "making more sense" than "poofing" things into existence. He's a TE at the tender age of 6 simply because, due to the evidence he's seen, combined with his belief in God, the ToE as something "God would do, easy", makes more sense than "poofing" entire animals out of thin air.

Im not saying he's a brilliant scientist or anything. I am saying that he's more of a scientist than those who assert "Evolution has never been observed, therefore it cant be true" (which is wrong on more than one count)

Viva la 6 year olds!!

Kudos to your son. One can only wonder what he would believe had he never been introduced to the concept of Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny or God.

 

[Dannager]

The whole "if you cant see it, if you cant observe it, it must not be true" fallacy was belied by my youngest son tonight.

My dear sweet 6 year old blew my mind tonight.
Now, you have to consider several things about him...
1- He firmly believes in Santa Claus
2- He firmly believes in God (as in "the guy that made everything")
3- Likewise his belief in the Tooth Fairy
4- Likewise his belief in the Easter Bunny (although he debates the existence of this last entity)
All in all, my son is very "typical" for a 6 year old

Yet his reasoning capabilities astound me time and time again.

Tonight, I told him I was going to change the toilet seat from blue to black "by magic". "Abracadabra" I said.
He watched me lock myself in the bathroom.
5 minutes later, after finishing his dinner, he knocked on the bathroom door, and I opened the door.
Voila! The formerly ugly-as-sin blue toilet seat and cover was "magically" replaced with a new, sleek looking "black mahogany" (or some such) toilet seat and cover.

Did he buy it?
Not for a second.

He believes in God, he believes in Santa Claus,. he believes in FAIRIES for crying out loud, but there was no way (in his mind) that those posed a more reasonable explanation than me replacing the seat in question.

"Fine" I replied, "If I replaced it, then where is the blue seat? And where did the black one come from?"
Please note the blue seat was nowhere to be visually seen from his short POV, and he had never seen the black one.

After examining the bathroom for a few seconds, he came to the conclusion that I must have placed the old seat in the cupboards far above his head and that I likewise got the black seat from the same location.
He had me, down to the last detail.

"But, God could have done it, yes? Or perhaps the Easter Bunny...after all, it's getting pretty close to Easter" I said, hoping to put a kink in his reasoning.
"They COULD have" he calmly replied "But it makes more sense that YOU did it. You came in the bathroom, when you opened the door, I saw YOU"
"But you cant see God" I again replied, "and youve never seen the Easter Bunny"
"But you changing the seats makes more sense" he again stated, inadvertently applying Occam's razor.

He looked at the evidence and he could have said "Santa did it, God did it, or the Bunny did it". But instead he applied the most reasonable (given objective empirical evidence) explanation.


Id like to say, just in passing, that he also finds the basic concepts of evolutionary theory as "making more sense" than "poofing" things into existence. He's a TE at the tender age of 6 simply because, due to the evidence he's seen, combined with his belief in God, the ToE as something "God would do, easy", makes more sense than "poofing" entire animals out of thin air.

Im not saying he's a brilliant scientist or anything. I am saying that he's more of a scientist than those who assert "Evolution has never been observed, therefore it cant be true" (which is wrong on more than one count)

Viva la 6 year olds!!

I expect good things of this young man you speak of.

 

[corvus_corax]

Kudos to your son. One can only wonder what he would believe had he never been introduced to the concept of Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny or God.

I expect good things of this young man you speak of.

Thanks to both of you! I dearly hope that I have instilled some small degree of critical thinking in my dear boy.
My influecne or not, I think he's doing quite well!

And note that the above quotes are (I kid you not) exact statements of his, not paraphrases. I posted my reply above within 10 minutes of the event*

*Cause that's how proud I am of my baby-boy!!

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

i took it from an excerpt from a book of his...forget the citing righ tnow though...

 

[SamCJ]

No, I don't know it.

What you claim not to know, remember, is that the dictionary definition of "directly observe" a mutation being made in the act would not include merely comparing a later genome with an earlier one. Despite the superior intelligence of scientists, they do not have license from the common man to manipulate the plain meaning of words, after the fact, in order to avoid the appellation of "liar." The phrase of mine that you quoted and denied also challenged you to justify your justification for the use of the term "directly observe" based upon the dictionary, and you made no effort to meet the challenge. In fact, some of your prior messages in this thread clearly concede that direct observation of a beneficial mutation is impossible. In view of these things, your present claim not to know that Loudmouth's persistent effort to defend the lie of "direct observation" is crap is also crap.

To me, that's as directly observed as need be. The reason for this is one that I asked you before. Give me one scientific fact that clearly is based on 'direct observation' as you understand it.

Whether the observation is direct enough for you is irrelevant. The claim of direct observation is being made to IDists or others who are less knowledgeable than you about the circumstanial evidence backing up the evolutionists' position that the mutation was created by an accident that occurred during the replicating process rather than intentionally. The use of the phrase, "directly observed," is clearly intended to say to those less informed people that "we scientists have watched the process so carefully while in such immediate contact that we were able to determine that the change occurred by pure accident rather than on purpose." That statement is a lie.

Besides, this is a pretty useless line of reasoning. What I have described would be counted as direct observation by anyone except the ones most needing to make some inanne point (ie, you). You'll have to admit that observing the effects before and after a mutation, with knowing there couldn't be anything in between but that mutation, is pretty darn direct. It's as direct as seeing hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water and most people would have no problem calling that a 'direct observation' also.

There are several serious falacies in the above paragraph.

First, I have said and continue to say that the evolutionists lie of direct observation adds little to the strength of their position and is really "pretty useless" as you point out. ToE has substantial circumstantial evidence to support it. However, the point of the prior similar thread of BVZ that somehow bled over to this one (and I deny instigating the bleeding process) was who was the bigger liars, IDists or evolutionists. That point is different from who is correct. Your effort to infer that my "inanne (sic) point" is directed to who is correct is misguided. My point is directed toward the bigger liar issue.

Second, the meaning of words is somewhat shaped by the context of the issue they are meant to address. Yours and Loudmouth's h-o-h2o analogy is inapplicable because observation of that event is not ever attempting to address the issue, accident vs. intentional. The only issue there is whether the two separate gaseous elements can become a liquid that looks totally different. It is not necessary to see the molecular interaction to observe that the gases have disappeared and the liquid is now apparent. No one is arguing that an intelligent being was necessary to step in and create the liquid water, as they do with species.

A better analogy directed at the accident vs intentional issue is my analogy about car wrecks, first discussed long ago but ignored by you and Loudmouth. If I see two good new cars approaching each other and moments later see two mangled disabled cars with the same licence plates as the first two new cars in the approximate positions they would have been moments earlier at the speed of the new cars, then I can conclude that the new cars collided (like h and o become h2o). If that were the only issue, I might even be allowed to say that I "observed" the collision, at least, I would probably survive a perjury trial. However, if the issue is whether one vehicle intentionally caused the collision, I cannot say I observed the collision, because what I observed does not remotely address the issue. If, on the contrary, I can say that I saw car A hit the ice, slide and turn sideways into the path of car B, and collide with car B, then I do address the relevant issue, accident vs intentional, and I can truthfully say I observed the collision. The ice and actions of car A show rather clearly that the collision was an accident, and not intentional. Since evolutinists cannot say that they have observed the "ice" or anything remotely similar to the actual cause of the beneficial mutation, they cannot truthfully say they have directly observed beneficial mutations in the context of the "accident vs intentional" issue.

On a different point, you're getting your threads mixed up. This thread was set up with the central question:
How valid is the claim:
"Since mutations cannot be observed directly, they do not exist."

You are right about this. Thanks. On the actual, topic of this thread, I certainly do not maintain that position.

I think the 'point' you're trying to make is an inherent meaningless one, because it really doesn't matter whether something is directly or indirectly observed in the manner you describe. Heck, I think it's even completely irrelevant if we use what I see as directly observe (ie, look before, look after, changed? --> directly observed). What matters is whether the theory fits the evidence, no matter whether this evidence is directly or indirectly observed.

The evidence points to mutations occurring randomly. Whether that is through direct or indirect measurements, is really uninteresting.

The car analogy above should persuade you that the true direct observation can be very important to the "accident vs. intentional" issue. This issue can be addressed in absence of an eye witness, and usually is adddressed only by circumstantial evidence. I do not claim that circumstantial evidence is inferior, I only claim that it is different and cannot truthfully claim to be the same as direct observation. Evolutionists on this site have described to me some of the circumstantial evidence supporting the unintentional cause of mutations. It is okay but not conclusive. Despite your alleged belief that direct observation is not important to the issue, those who are either smarter or more honest than you recognize that it is important to the issue or else they would not bother to tell this lie.

There is circumstantial evidence to the contrary. For example, if I come to you and say: "I am the greatest head flipper of all time. I will flip this normal coin to come up heads 10 times in a row." Then I do it. Wouldn't you want to examine the coin I had been flipping? Wouldn't you agree that there is circumstantial evidence that I had somehow rigged the event to do what I said I would do? Your suspicions would certainly be valid, in my opinion.

Now let's suppose the same thing except, I ask you to give me a coin of yours, and I flip your coin heads ten times in a row. Now, there is circumstantial evidence that I accomplished the feat intentionally. Your reaction is likely to be: "Damn, you are a machine!" Of course, it is also possible that I just got lucky. But you would be legitimately impressed if I did it on my first flip following my prediction, more impressed after the second flip and so forth. After ten flips of heads, you would be a true Believer, and the evidence would support you.

 

[Tomk80]

What you claim not to know, remember, is that the dictionary definition of "directly observe" a mutation being made in the act would not include merely comparing a later genome with an earlier one. Despite the superior intelligence of scientists, they do not have license from the common man to manipulate the plain meaning of words, after the fact, in order to avoid the appellation of "liar." The phrase of mine that you quoted and denied also challenged you to justify your justification for the use of the term "directly observe" based upon the dictionary, and you made no effort to meet the challenge. In fact, some of your prior messages in this thread clearly concede that direct observation of a beneficial mutation is impossible. In view of these things, your present claim not to know that Loudmouth's persistent effort to defend the lie of "direct observation" is crap is also crap.

But there is an inherent dishonesty in your position, in that even 'direct observation' of the mutation would not exclude an intelligence. Given the observation on mutations that we have, they are just as directly observed as h-o-h2o.

Whether the observation is direct enough for you is irrelevant. The claim of direct observation is being made to IDists or others who are less knowledgeable than you about the circumstanial evidence backing up the evolutionists' position that the mutation was created by an accident that occurred during the replicating process rather than intentionally. The use of the phrase, "directly observed," is clearly intended to say to those less informed people that "we scientists have watched the process so carefully while in such immediate contact that we were able to determine that the change occurred by pure accident rather than on purpose." That statement is a lie.



There are several serious falacies in the above paragraph.

First, I have said and continue to say that the evolutionists lie of direct observation adds little to the strength of their position and is really "pretty useless" as you point out. ToE has substantial circumstantial evidence to support it. However, the point of the prior similar thread of BVZ that somehow bled over to this one (and I deny instigating the bleeding process) was who was the bigger liars, IDists or evolutionists. That point is different from who is correct. Your effort to infer that my "inanne (sic) point" is directed to who is correct is misguided. My point is directed toward the bigger liar issue.

Second, the meaning of words is somewhat shaped by the context of the issue they are meant to address. Yours and Loudmouth's h-o-h2o analogy is inapplicable because observation of that event is not ever attempting to address the issue, accident vs. intentional. The only issue there is whether the two separate gaseous elements can become a liquid that looks totally different. It is not necessary to see the molecular interaction to observe that the gases have disappeared and the liquid is now apparent. No one is arguing that an intelligent being was necessary to step in and create the liquid water, as they do with species.

A better analogy directed at the accident vs intentional issue is my analogy about car wrecks, first discussed long ago but ignored by you and Loudmouth. If I see two good new cars approaching each other and moments later see two mangled disabled cars with the same licence plates as the first two new cars in the approximate positions they would have been moments earlier at the speed of the new cars, then I can conclude that the new cars collided (like h and o become h2o). If that were the only issue, I might even be allowed to say that I "observed" the collision, at least, I would probably survive a perjury trial. However, if the issue is whether one vehicle intentionally caused the collision, I cannot say I observed the collision, because what I observed does not remotely address the issue. If, on the contrary, I can say that I saw car A hit the ice, slide and turn sideways into the path of car B, and collide with car B, then I do address the relevant issue, accident vs intentional, and I can truthfully say I observed the collision. The ice and actions of car A show rather clearly that the collision was an accident, and not intentional. Since evolutinists cannot say that they have observed the "ice" or anything remotely similar to the actual cause of the beneficial mutation, they cannot truthfully say they have directly observed beneficial mutations in the context of the "accident vs intentional" issue.

But even direct observation won't address the issue, so what's the point?

You are right about this. Thanks. On the actual, topic of this thread, I certainly do not maintain that position.

OK.

The car analogy above should persuade you that the true direct observation can be very important to the "accident vs. intentional" issue. This issue can be addressed in absence of an eye witness, and usually is adddressed only by circumstantial evidence. I do not claim that circumstantial evidence is inferior, I only claim that it is different and cannot truthfully claim to be the same as direct observation. Evolutionists on this site have described to me some of the circumstantial evidence supporting the unintentional cause of mutations. It is okay but not conclusive. Despite your alleged belief that direct observation is not important to the issue, those who are either smarter or more honest than you recognize that it is important to the issue or else they would not bother to tell this lie.

There is circumstantial evidence to the contrary. For example, if I come to you and say: "I am the greatest head flipper of all time. I will flip this normal coin to come up heads 10 times in a row." Then I do it. Wouldn't you want to examine the coin I had been flipping? Wouldn't you agree that there is circumstantial evidence that I had somehow rigged the event to do what I said I would do? Your suspicions would certainly be valid, in my opinion.

Now let's suppose the same thing except, I ask you to give me a coin of yours, and I flip your coin heads ten times in a row. Now, there is circumstantial evidence that I accomplished the feat intentionally. Your reaction is likely to be: "Damn, you are a machine!" Of course, it is also possible that I just got lucky. But you would be legitimately impressed if I did it on my first flip following my prediction, more impressed after the second flip and so forth. After ten flips of heads, you would be a true Believer, and the evidence would support you.

And here you demonstrate why your car analogy doesn't work. Even if we would directly observe a mutation happening, we could not exclude an intelligence. So we directly observed a radiation wave hitting a certain spot in the genome, causing the mutation, what does this tell us? The radiation wave could have been divinely directed. So direct observation is not going to address the issue you want to have addressed. The only thing that is going to address that issue is logic and counting.

Logic is going to address it, in the sense that we can, from our observations, determine the causes of mutations. These observations are just as direct as the observations of h-o-h2o, so if you have no problem calling that observation direct observation (and I would hold that it is direct observation), there is no reason why we should call our observations of mutations anything different. We can derive from the mechanisms of mutation, that these are going to be stochastically randomly distributed across the genome.

Counting is going to address it in another, also direct, way. If we count how many times an effect of a mutation occurs, we can compare it to how many times we would expect it to occur if the effect would be random. Experiments like these have been performed and have been presented to you. They further confirm that the distribution of mutations is random.