Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

We could focus on the evolution of the eye if you like. We could go over it step by step. Of course you need to remember that the modern eye was never a goal, it was simply a result. Are you ready to learn?

I am. Go ahead. Teach us how the eye evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am. Go ahead. Teach us how the eye evolved.

Can we start after nerves evolved? Is that a reasonable starting point? I don't want to reinvent the wheel excessively here.

 

[sfs]

Here's your coloring book answer "Then another mutation occurs that happens to change the same trait"

...is your precious theory only that good? A mutation just happens along?

Yes. Mutations happen all the time. Every single base in the human genome has been mutated in the current, living population, for example. So please tell me why another mutation wouldn't happen. Don't just jeer or insult. Just tell us why it wouldn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's your coloring book answer "Then another mutation occurs that happens to change the same trait"

...is your precious theory only that good? A mutation just happens along? If that's the best you have, I'll just have to accept how weak and void the T.O.E really is.

Actually that is very strong and all that we need. The fact is that positive mutations add up. Negative mutations are self limiting.

 

[-57]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time, as I'm sure this has been answered a dozen times and I doubt you care.

There's no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation in and of itself. A change occurs, that's all a mutation is. If it doesn't kill the organism or interfere with the reproductive success of the organism, it'll be passed on to the next generation along with other new mutations. If these don't kill it or interfere with its ability to breed, then they'll be passed on, in addition to other mutations, and so on.

Over time mutations (change) continues. Its a continual process, because God's organisms are imperfect in their replication process. Its why we can grow better and strong crops, why we can breed dogs into all manner of sizes and shapes, and how organisms can adapt to changes in the environment. Sometimes the changes don't help an organism reproduce or kills it, so that it doesn't pass on those traits. Sometimes changes allow it to be more adaptable to the environment it is in, so it will become more fixated in the population (increase in allele frequency) of organisms.

That's it. No magic beneficial mutations. Just ones that don't outright kill the organism when it reproduces, or causes it to survive better in its environment. Organisms constantly change when they reproduce, and environments constantly change as well. Evolution is just the mechanism that allows life not to die out when the environment changes.

Thanks for the reply....but like others you get the coloring book award. All you said was mutations occur and get passed along. Big deal. You still haven't overcome the hurdles I presented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the reply....but like others you get the coloring book award. All you said was mutations occur and get passed along. Big deal. You still haven't overcome the hurdles I presented.

What hurdles? I didn't see any. Am I missing something here guys?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Can we start after nerves evolved? Is that a reasonable starting point? I don't want to reinvent the wheel excessively here.

Start right after you demonstrate your mastery over the arguments of William Lane Craig, and right after you admit that I correctly quoted Sam Harris.

 

[-57]

Yes. Mutations happen all the time. Every single base in the human genome has been mutated in the current, living population, for example. So please tell me why another mutation wouldn't happen. Don't just jeer or insult. Just tell us why it wouldn't.

I never said mutations don't occur.
My point was that for so-called beneficial mutations to occur to the point that the information in the DNA attributed for a particular trait increases to the vast sophistication seen today in the animal kingdom...is impossible.

 

[-57]

What makes you think that positive mutations are extremely rare? They don't seem to be all that rare when one investigates the matter. You might check out this article here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

From the beginning the article fails. Here what it said:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

Hey Evo's, Lets compare mutations in humans to mutations in E.coli.


note: the rest of your post was nonsense and ignored.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Start right after you demonstrate your mastery over the arguments of William Lane Craig, and right after you admit that I correctly quoted Sam Harris.

Please don't be a jerk. The burden of proof for the Sam Harris WLC quote falls upon you. All I need to say is that I doubt if that was accurate. You then need to support your claim. I thought that you knew how debating works. There is no excuse on the internet not to support your claims. This is not like a high school debate when you might be able to baffle the judges by unsupported BS. Different rules apply here. Here the burden of proof is always upon the person making positive claims. If you challenge my argument on how the eye could have evolved I will have to support my claims with valid sources. This is not a rule that works only against creationists, it works against the evolution side too.

Of course we can support our claims with valid sources. Creationists can't. And that is why the lose court case after court case. If a creationist got caught quote mining, a favorite technique of some deniers of reality, in a court case he would be caught and judges do not put up with lying in their court houses. There would be a quick finding of contempt of course along with fines and/or jail time. Creationists know this and tend to use much better manners in the court room. That is also why they constantly lose those cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the beginning the article fails. Here what it said:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

Hey Evo's, Lets compare mutations in humans to mutations in E.coli.


note: the rest of your post was nonsense and ignored.

Telling falsehoods is not nice. You probably did not understand the rest of my post since you clearly did not understand the article that refuted your claim. How did the article fail? It simply told the truth. Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious in the environment that they occur in. In functional mutations one in ten is positive. That means for every 9 harmful mutations there is one good one. That is more than enough for the theory of evolution. You seem not to understand that populations evolve, not individuals. Especially in a species that reproduces sexually. That means that the positive mutations by one can eventually be shared by the entire population. Bad mutations are self limiting. They tend to die out.

Remember, I am willing to go into detail on any part of my posts that you do not understand.

ETA: And yes, scientists do experiments than other organisms besides humans. Sane people believe that it is immoral to do life threatening research on humans. On E. coli, not so much.

 

[-57]

Telling falsehoods is not nice. You probably did not understand the rest of my post since you clearly did not understand the article that refuted your claim.

It was at this point I stopped reading your post. Your rudeness and nastyness just flows out of you. You think you would have saved the ad-hominem remarks for the end rather than the beginning.

NEXT

 

[sfs]

I never said mutations don't occur.
My point was that for so-called beneficial mutations to occur to the point that the information in the DNA attributed for a particular trait increases to the vast sophistication seen today in the animal kingdom...is impossible.

You scoffed at the idea that the next beneficial mutation would occur. You fail to give any reason for that scoffing here. Do you agree that the next one can occur or not?

 

[-57]

You scoffed at the idea that the next beneficial mutation would occur. You fail to give any reason for that scoffing here. Do you agree that the next one can occur or not?

In the past I gave you the benefit of the doubt that a second so-called beneficial mutation could occur. So please don't accuse me of scoffing.

YOUR problem....what are the odds that the second beneficial mutation will effect the coded DNA information that the previous beneficial mutation changed somewhere down the line of the species progeny?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you're in an interview and everything is going along fine, and the director of admissions asks the question, almost as an afterthought while she polishes up her notes, "what do you think about evolution? The theory..."

Is there a right answer?

How did you determine that your application was marked down because of what you said after that question?

I'm sure we couldn't make blanket statements about what a particular biology department is going today. Ask Michael Behe if he is glad to be already tenured. The fact that some have lost their jobs and some have been denied tenure because they reject evolution is undeniable.

Those aren't facts at all.

http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/the-truth

This is why you keep pegging my bovine excrement meter. Creationist organizations have created these fictions, and you have swallowed it whole.

 

[Loudmouth]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

This is the third time I have shown you the same thread that I started just for you:

How Mutations Accumulate

How can you say that there isn't a single evolutionist who can't explain how mutations accumulate when I have a thread explaining how mutations accumulate?

How does the so-called beneficial mutation occur again and again, many, many times in the proper place in the DNA so that the information contained in the code is increased to the point that the fitness of an animal is increased and enhanced such that something like the dolphins echo-location system is evolved?

It's called heredity and natural selection. Those with the beneficial mutation have more offspring than those without. Over time, the beneficial mutation becomes numerous in the population. Rinse and repeat for each additional beneficial mutation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's your coloring book answer "Then another mutation occurs that happens to change the same trait"

...is your precious theory only that good? A mutation just happens along? If that's the best you have, I'll just have to accept how weak and void the T.O.E really is.

How could it not happen? The human genome is 3 billion bases large and the mutation rate is about 50 mutations per person per generation. It only requires 180 million births to get that one mutation, assuming that there is only one possible mutation.

I have shown you the math before, but I see you are still ignoring it.

 

[sfs]

I
YOUR problem....what are the odds that the second beneficial mutation will effect the coded DNA information that the previous beneficial mutation changed somewhere down the line of the species progeny?

That it will affect exactly the same DNA? Pretty low. That it will affect the same trait, which is what we're talking about -- quite high. There are usually lots of mutations that can affect a single trait should they occur. Since I've previously given you several examples for which we can actually identify the multiple mutations, you should already know this fact.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Please don't be a jerk. The burden of proof for the Sam Harris WLC quote falls upon you. All I need to say is that I doubt if that was accurate. You then need to support your claim. I thought that you knew how debating works. There is no excuse on the internet not to support your claims. This is not like a high school debate when you might be able to baffle the judges by unsupported [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Different rules apply here. Here the burden of proof is always upon the person making positive claims. If you challenge my argument on how the eye could have evolved I will have to support my claims with valid sources. This is not a rule that works only against creationists, it works against the evolution side too.

Your burden of proof is with regard to your statements about WLC's arguments. Please pick one and proceed with your refutation or withdraw the comment.

 

[Paterfamilia]

That it will affect exactly the same DNA? Pretty low. That it will affect the same trait, which is what we're talking about -- quite high. There are usually lots of mutations that can affect a single trait should they occur. Since I've previously given you several examples for which we can actually identify the multiple mutations, you should already know this fact.

Do you have a source for that please?