Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[NobleMouse]

The research isn't all centered around one mutation. The above response is without meaning.

I don't think either of you has actually read the research to understand this, and neither of you appear to have any clue what you're talking about. I've asked you to read the research, multiple times, yet here we are.

And this is what I am talking about with noble mouse. Neither of you appear to be scientifically literate. Both of you are making this arguments, yet neither of you have actually read the research and you have no idea what you're talking about. Noble mouse also cant read geologic maps, and you know what, i doubt you can either. So whenever either of you starts talking about geology and paleontology, it never makes any sense, because neither of you understand the subject.

I don't mean to be offensive, but you two just don't understand the science you are arguing against.

to demonstrate, what do either of you see in the map below? Be descriptive.

I'm not sure trying to correlate map reading with the ability to understand and synthesize the research of scientists who don't agree with evolution for scientific reasons, along with scripture, and not least of all common sense is a meaningful exercise. All I indicated was the existence of living fossils that were once believed to be extinct demonstrates that ages assigned to when living organisms existed by their location in the geologic column is not, shall we say "rock solid." Likewise, there are geologists who also do not agree with uniformitarianism and billions of years, on the basis of scientific evidence, which can also be understood and synthesized by those without geology degrees. I am guessing your "beef" here is that you don't like it when others, who don't have a degree in the same field of study as you and yet also don't believe the same as you believe about that field of study, on the basis of others who do have degrees in the same field of study as you?

I'll continue to wait for example(s) of observed evolution resulting in a new created kind/baramin/family as is needed to support ToE beyond conjecture/speculation/imagination. I suspect if it existed, Sir Richard Dawkins would have been among the first to pull it out of his pocket as if to put the final nail in the coffin of bible believers. Likewise, if you find something feel free to share...

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

You said, and I quote

"did not use new DNA that resulted from mutations + natural selection"

Which is in fact a false understanding of the research. Because in fact, there were observed fixation of mutations, resulting in new DNA, as a product of natural selection.

You were blatantly incorrect. Just like last time, you are essentially lying. Whether it is intentional lying or not, I do not know.

Simply put, you just don't know what you are talking about.

The research actually discusses at least tens of beneficial mutations, observed over the span of 66,000 generations among multiple populations.

And if you read the research (which you likely have not), you would be able to read about this.

"In other words, the mutation did not create new genetic information that was utilized"

But it was new genetic information and it was utilized. In fact, populations accumulating these mutations (notice this is plural, mutations with an "s" at the end), utilized their mutations to out live, out compete and to dominate in their environment. And this isnt just about one mutation, this is about at least 10s of beneficial mutations. Its not just about the one that you seem to be focused on.

Do you understand that there were many observed beneficial mutations that were fixated via natural selection, throughout the experiment? And do you understand that it is these fixating mutations that are causing an increase in fitness, that has been increasing for decades now and over 66,000 generations?

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is a simple question to prove the point @NobleMouse

What do you have to say about the ecoli populations that have been evolving, independently of the discussion regarding citrate? That is to say, what do you have to say about the ecoli that is mutating and fixating beneficial mutations via natural selection, that is resulting in increased fitness, with respect to the consumption of glucose?

This is precisely what the research predominantly discusses. This is precisely what you seem to be denying.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems."

And this is interesting because, in the human body, our functional systems used to do things such as...breathing underwater (we evolved from fish), such as producing hard shelled protective eggs (we evolved from reptiles and prior amphibians), such as having a thick coat of fur to protect us (we evolved from furry beings) from the cold. These functions that produced these phenotypic qualities have been "degraded" and lost. We had to lose the functionality of proteins of our pre existing gills for breathing underwater in order to construct the functionality of our upper and lower jaw. But at the end of the day, this sacrifice and degredation of functionality allowed us to speak the human language, with use of new functional systems.

With the ecoli, they might lose the functionality necessary to digest certain carbon substrates, but much like a fish loses the functionality of its gills to live on land with lungs, so to do the e.coli sacrifice a function in order to gain a new function.

The idea of evolution from fish to man (or amphibian or reptile or prior mammal), as described above, is not logically opposed to degredation of the functionality of proteins. Because this loss in functionality (of gill forming protein for water breathing) does not correlate to the inability of life to evolve. Because even in times in which functionality of one thing is lost, the functionality of other proteins is gained. And so the e.coli gain the ability to consume a resource, giving themselves an advantage in their environment, at the cost of losing the ability to consume an alternative, less valuable resource.

 

[4x4toy]

Each kind at creation was equipped with all the DNA information it's kind would ever need. Every combination DNA ever needed for the post flood world was included in each kind on the Ark . And God even chose the animals .. As animals repopulated Earth they were equipped for breeding to sort out the right combinations and communities in diverse climates through DNA created from the beginning . God knew what was needed from the start and no need for DNA to evolve into something new or ''beneficial mutation''..

 

[Job 33:6]

Each kind at creation was equipped with all the DNA information it's kind would ever need. Every combination DNA ever needed for the post flood world was included in each kind on the Ark . And God even chose the animals .. As animals repopulated Earth they were equipped for breeding to sort out the right combinations and communities in diverse climates through DNA created from the beginning . God knew what was needed from the start and no need for DNA to evolve into something new or ''beneficial mutation''..

 

[NobleMouse]

And this is interesting because, in the human body, our functional systems used to do things such as...breathing underwater (we evolved from fish), such as producing hard shelled protective eggs (we evolved from reptiles and prior amphibians), such as having a thick coat of fur to protect us (we evolved from furry beings) from the cold. These functions that produced these phenotypic qualities have been "degraded" and lost. We had to lose the functionality of proteins of our pre existing gills for breathing underwater in order to construct the functionality of our upper and lower jaw. But at the end of the day, this sacrifice and degredation of functionality allowed us to speak the human language, with use of new functional systems.

With the ecoli, they might lose the functionality necessary to digest certain carbon substrates, but much like a fish loses the functionality of its gills to live on land with lungs, so to do the e.coli sacrifice a function in order to gain a new function.

The idea of evolution from fish to man (or amphibian or reptile or prior mammal), as described above, is not logically opposed to degredation of the functionality of proteins. Because this loss in functionality (of gill forming protein for water breathing) does not correlate to the inability of life to evolve. Because even in times in which functionality of one thing is lost, the functionality of other proteins is gained. And so the e.coli gain the ability to consume a resource, giving themselves an advantage in their environment, at the cost of losing the ability to consume an alternative, less valuable resource.

What's the bigger picture/issue with this? The bigger picture/issue is that the single-celled protozoa does not have all the systems and functionality of the human body. To believe evolution is to believe that at some point the protozoa continued to lose more and more functionality until it became trillions of over 200 uniquely different kinds of cells, representing many complex systems, that we call a human. Protozoa make protozoa. Humans make humans. Fish make fish.

@NobleMouse

You said, and I quote

"did not use new DNA that resulted from mutations + natural selection"

That's correct, in the article it states:
"After about 31,500 generations, the germ’s cellular machinery cut out and pasted these genes into another spot on the bacteria’s DNA. The new location already contained an “on” promoter."

The new location already contained an "on" promoter. The ability already existed, it was just not utilized. The mutation degraded the preexisting ability to regulate additional gate proteins. You read and responded to the post by @4x4toy, affirming what we know to be true: God made each kind with all the healthy functioning DNA it would need. Mutations, as demonstrated here, degrade this DNA.

Which is in fact a false understanding of the research. Because in fact, there were observed fixation of mutations, resulting in new DNA, as a product of natural selection.

You were blatantly incorrect. Just like last time, you are essentially lying. Whether it is intentional lying or not, I do not know.

Prove what you are saying is true. If all of your conjecture and semantics on words is true then what you ardently say is "evolution" with E.Coli's loss of ability to regulate citrate then you could demonstrate this at the aggregate with the creation of new kinds of living organisms (observed either in nature or a lab)... which I've repeatedly asked for... and have yet to see demonstrated.

Simply put, you just don't know what you are talking about.

I know evolution is not true, and neither Richard Dawkins nor you have proven otherwise.

The research actually discusses at least tens of beneficial mutations, observed over the span of 66,000 generations among multiple populations.

Evolutionary spin by calling it "beneficial".

And if you read the research (which you likely have not), you would be able to read about this.

Paraphrased: "And if you read the research of those who believe evolution is true and have put that spin on the E.Coli experiment, evoking evolutionary ideas through the use of suggestive language and believed it the way I believe it, then you would understand it the way I understand it."

I'll pass.

"In other words, the mutation did not create new genetic information that was utilized"

But it was new genetic information and it was utilized. In fact, populations accumulating these mutations (notice this is plural, mutations with an "s" at the end), utilized their mutations to out live, out compete and to dominate in their environment. And this isnt just about one mutation, this is about at least 10s of beneficial mutations. Its not just about the one that you seem to be focused on.

Do you understand that there were many observed beneficial mutations that were fixated via natural selection, throughout the experiment? And do you understand that it is these fixating mutations that are causing an increase in fitness, that has been increasing for decades now and over 66,000 generations?

More conjecture. What happened in the end, where is the E.Coli at today?? Regardless if you believe the mutations were "beneficial", the E.Coli is still E.Coli - you can't get around that. You have not personally, nor has anyone personally observed one created kind become a new created kind. All that's ever been observed is speciation, mutation, degredation, adaptation... never a new kind or family of living organisms.

Here is a simple question to prove the point @NobleMouse

What do you have to say about the ecoli populations that have been evolving, independently of the discussion regarding citrate? That is to say, what do you have to say about the ecoli that is mutating and fixating beneficial mutations via natural selection, that is resulting in increased fitness, with respect to the consumption of glucose?

This is precisely what the research predominantly discusses. This is precisely what you seem to be denying.

No, I am not denying adaptation. To your question: "What do you have to say about the ecoli populations that have been evolving, independently of the discussion regarding citrate?"

"...E.Coli populations that have been evolving"? Again, use of suggestive language. What I have to say about E.Coli adapting or diversifying is that this is consistent with all other life and is consistent with the word of God. All life adapts and diversifies into species and subspecies within their created kinds... observably true, no conjecture needed... this is what Darwin observed with the finches of the Galapagos and what is observed with E.Coli over 66k generations. Consistent with the word of God: Yes - this is consistent with what we're told in that God created every kind there ever was and each was to be fruitful and multiply after its kind.

I'll continue to patiently wait for the report where evolution of a new kind has been observed or recreated in a laboratory. Until then, we'll just continue to watch E.Coli produce more E.Coli.

 

[dcalling]

So you said @NobleMouse was wrong because he said new DNA is found, I am simply point out from the research that other people already found the same strains in e.coli long before that research, so no new DNA is found, and that he is right.

It is just simple fact, don't know what you mean by "The research isn't all centered around one mutation. The above response is without meaning."

And you are a geologist, so it is fine if you want to quiz us on your field of study. I will say your map is a map that shows where types of rock (either existing ones or sedimented over years) are, where the fault lines are etc. If I am wrong you are welcome to correct me.

And it is only fair we trade knowledge. Can you tell us what does the following piece of code do?

function some(array) {
if (!(array != null && array.length)) {
return []
}
let length = 0
array = filter(array, (group) => {
if (isArray(group)) {
length = Math.max(group.length, length)
return true
}
})
let index = -1
const result = new Array(length)
while (++index < length) {
result[index] = map(array, baseProperty(index))
}
return result
}

The research isn't all centered around one mutation. The above response is without meaning.

I don't think either of you has actually read the research to understand this, and neither of you appear to have any clue what you're talking about. I've asked you to read the research, multiple times, yet here we are.

And this is what I am talking about with noble mouse. Neither of you appear to be scientifically literate. Both of you are making this arguments, yet neither of you have actually read the research and you have no idea what you're talking about. Noble mouse also cant read geologic maps, and you know what, i doubt you can either. So whenever either of you starts talking about geology and paleontology, it never makes any sense, because neither of you understand the subject.

I don't mean to be offensive, but you two just don't understand the science you are arguing against.

to demonstrate, what do either of you see in the map below? Be descriptive.

 

[Job 33:6]

What's the bigger picture/issue with this? The bigger picture/issue is that the single-celled protozoa does not have all the systems and functionality of the human body. To believe evolution is to believe that at some point the protozoa continued to lose more and more functionality until it became trillions of over 200 uniquely different kinds of cells, representing many complex systems, that we call a human. Protozoa make protozoa. Humans make humans. Fish make fish.


That's correct, in the article it states:
"After about 31,500 generations, the germ’s cellular machinery cut out and pasted these genes into another spot on the bacteria’s DNA. The new location already contained an “on” promoter."

The new location already contained an "on" promoter. The ability already existed, it was just not utilized. The mutation degraded the preexisting ability to regulate additional gate proteins. You read and responded to the post by @4x4toy, affirming what we know to be true: God made each kind with all the healthy functioning DNA it would need. Mutations, as demonstrated here, degrade this DNA.


Prove what you are saying is true. If all of your conjecture and semantics on words is true then what you ardently say is "evolution" with E.Coli's loss of ability to regulate citrate then you could demonstrate this at the aggregate with the creation of new kinds of living organisms (observed either in nature or a lab)... which I've repeatedly asked for... and have yet to see demonstrated.


I know evolution is not true, and neither Richard Dawkins nor you have proven otherwise.


Evolutionary spin by calling it "beneficial".


Paraphrased: "And if you read the research of those who believe evolution is true and have put that spin on the E.Coli experiment, evoking evolutionary ideas through the use of suggestive language and believed it the way I believe it, then you would understand it the way I understand it."

I'll pass.


More conjecture. What happened in the end, where is the E.Coli at today?? Regardless if you believe the mutations were "beneficial", the E.Coli is still E.Coli - you can't get around that. You have not personally, nor has anyone personally observed one created kind become a new created kind. All that's ever been observed is speciation, mutation, degredation, adaptation... never a new kind or family of living organisms.



No, I am not denying adaptation. To your question: "What do you have to say about the ecoli populations that have been evolving, independently of the discussion regarding citrate?"

"...E.Coli populations that have been evolving"? Again, use of suggestive language. What I have to say about E.Coli adapting or diversifying is that this is consistent with all other life and is consistent with the word of God. All life adapts and diversifies into species and subspecies within their created kinds... observably true, no conjecture needed... this is what Darwin observed with the finches of the Galapagos and what is observed with E.Coli over 66k generations. Consistent with the word of God: Yes - this is consistent with what we're told in that God created every kind there ever was and each was to be fruitful and multiply after its kind.

I'll continue to patiently wait for the report where evolution of a new kind has been observed or recreated in a laboratory. Until then, we'll just continue to watch E.Coli produce more E.Coli.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so im just going to move on.

I recommend you read the research itself, rather than trying to understand it simply by reading what random young earth creationists say about it. You sound like you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Job 33:6]

So you said @NobleMouse was wrong because he said new DNA is found, I am simply point out from the research that other people already found the same strains in e.coli long before that research, so no new DNA is found, and that he is right.

It is just simple fact, don't know what you mean by "The research isn't all centered around one mutation. The above response is without meaning."

And you are a geologist, so it is fine if you want to quiz us on your field of study. I will say your map is a map that shows where types of rock (either existing ones or sedimented over years) are, where the fault lines are etc. If I am wrong you are welcome to correct me.

And it is only fair we trade knowledge. Can you tell us what does the following piece of code do?

function some(array) {
if (!(array != null && array.length)) {
return []
}
let length = 0
array = filter(array, (group) => {
if (isArray(group)) {
length = Math.max(group.length, length)
return true
}
})
let index = -1
const result = new Array(length)
while (++index < length) {
result[index] = map(array, baseProperty(index))
}
return result
}

Yes, there were plenty of new mutations and new DNA found. Read the research. There are at least 40 fixed new, beneficial mutations that were identified in the research, including mutations producing new combinations of DNA and increasing amounts of DNA.

It just baffles me, you two have no idea what you are talking about.

Noble mouse made a claim that was purely false, but because neither of you read the research, you are unable to discern this. And youre just repeating it as if it wasn't blatently false. And to make matters worse, you two willfully do not bother to read the research, and it just makes both of you sound foolish.

 

[Job 33:6]

"...E.Coli populations that have been evolving"? Again, use of suggestive language. What I have to say about E.Coli adapting or diversifying is that this is consistent with all other life and is consistent with the word of God. All life adapts and diversifies into species and subspecies within their created kinds... observably true, no conjecture needed... this is what Darwin observed with the finches of the Galapagos and what is observed with E.Coli over 66k generations. Consistent with the word of God: Yes - this is consistent with what we're told in that God created every kind there ever was and each was to be fruitful and multiply after its kind..

Your answer doesn't reflect the purpose of my question. You said, and I will quote again,

"In other words, the mutation did not create new genetic information that was utilized"

So my question is aimed at this.

What do you have to say about the ecoli populations that have been evolving, independently of the discussion regarding citrate? That is to say, what do you have to say about the ecoli that is mutating and fixating beneficial mutations via natural selection, that is resulting in increased fitness, with respect to the consumption of glucose?

What do you think allows for increased fitness with respect to the consumption of glucose? If not the fixated mutations, fixated by natural selection, that create new genetic information, that is utilized for the consumption of glucose?

The answer to the question, is contained within the question itself. Mutations are fixating as a product of natural selection. The mutations are producing genetic changes that are unique and new, and these changes are accumulating. All of this has been directly observed in the research, and this is what is allowing newer generations to out-compete the older generations.

@dcalling Noble mouse is blatantly incorrect.

If either of you cant understand this, then it is a demonstration of a flawed ability to logically derive information. And if either of you are incapable of constructing and understanding basic logical statements, then neither of you will ever be capable of understanding science. Nor could either of you be taken seriously beyond simplified discussions on an internet forum.

 

[4x4toy]

Yes, there were plenty of new mutations and new DNA found. Read the research. There are at least 40 fixed new, beneficial mutations that were identified in the research, including mutations producing new combinations of DNA and increasing amounts of DNA.

It just baffles me, you two have no idea what you are talking about.

Noble mouse made a claim that was purely false, but because neither of you read the research, you are unable to discern this. And youre just repeating it as if it wasn't blatently false. And to make matters worse, you two willfully do not bother to read the research, and it just makes both of you sound foolish.

Well your bacteria should be wearing clown shoes and riding unicycles any day now , Right ? Get something you can't hide in a microscope or paperwork .. I'm not baffled at all

 

[4x4toy]

Your answer doesn't reflect the purpose of my question. You said, and I will quote again,

"In other words, the mutation did not create new genetic information that was utilized"

So my question is aimed at this.

What do you have to say about the ecoli populations that have been evolving, independently of the discussion regarding citrate? That is to say, what do you have to say about the ecoli that is mutating and fixating beneficial mutations via natural selection, that is resulting in increased fitness, with respect to the consumption of glucose?

What do you think allows for increased fitness with respect to the consumption of glucose? If not the fixated mutations, fixated by natural selection, that create new genetic information, that is utilized for the consumption of glucose?

The answer to the question, is contained within the question itself. Mutations are fixating as a product of natural selection. The mutations are producing genetic changes that are unique and new, and these changes are accumulating. All of this has been directly observed in the research, and this is what is allowing newer generations to out-compete the older generations.

@dcalling Noble mouse is blatantly incorrect.

If either of you cant understand this, then it is a demonstration of a flawed ability to logically derive information. And if either of you are incapable of constructing and understanding basic logical statements, then neither of you will ever be capable of understanding science. Nor could either of you be taken seriously beyond simplified discussions on an internet forum.

And you're telling me you know all the perimeters contained within DNA, I ain't buying, never have never will ..

 

[Job 33:6]

And you're telling me you know all the perimeters contained within DNA, I ain't buying, never have never will ..

perimeters contained within the DNA?

 

[4x4toy]

perimeters contained within the DNA?

Is your bacteria still bacteria

 

[Job 33:6]

Is your bacteria still bacteria

No it actually grew legs just as evolutionary theory predicted.

Oh wait nevermind, the theory never proposed that bacteria would sprout legs in a petri dish overnight. Whew, for a second, I thought your question was meaningful.

 

[4x4toy]

No it actually grew legs just as evolutionary theory predicted

Wonder where its going and is it walking around on them

 

[NobleMouse]

Your answer doesn't reflect the purpose of my question. You said, and I will quote again,

"In other words, the mutation did not create new genetic information that was utilized"

So my question is aimed at this.

What do you have to say about the ecoli populations that have been evolving, independently of the discussion regarding citrate? That is to say, what do you have to say about the ecoli that is mutating and fixating beneficial mutations via natural selection, that is resulting in increased fitness, with respect to the consumption of glucose?

What do you think allows for increased fitness with respect to the consumption of glucose? If not the fixated mutations, fixated by natural selection, that create new genetic information, that is utilized for the consumption of glucose?

I will respond again, though will point out this is my 2nd response and you have yet to respond just once showing how E.Coli's adaptation to citrate (or any other example of a new kind being created through evolution), or any other mutation is evidence for evolution leading to a new created kind. What is being described with regard to increased fitness with respect to the consumption of glucose... this, to me, is no different than the process of the beak of finches in the Galapagos becoming more robust in order to eat the available food. This is variation within an already created kind. This is readily observable, but does not mean the finch came from a dinosaur. But this is what is asserted by the general theory of evolution, correct? In fact, I believe ToE asserts all life has a common ancestor, even to the extent that we are related to fruit. The loss of ability to regulate within the E.Coli experiment (nor any other biased claims you make about what has mutated) does not demonstrate this possibility.

The answer to the question, is contained within the question itself. Mutations are fixating as a product of natural selection. The mutations are producing genetic changes that are unique and new, and these changes are accumulating. All of this has been directly observed in the research, and this is what is allowing newer generations to out-compete the older generations.

@dcalling Noble mouse is blatantly incorrect.

If either of you cant understand this, then it is a demonstration of a flawed ability to logically derive information. And if either of you are incapable of constructing and understanding basic logical statements, then neither of you will ever be capable of understanding science. Nor could either of you be taken seriously beyond simplified discussions on an internet forum.

A flawed ability to logically derive information is to say that all life evolved from a common ancestor, but only be able to demonstrate variation within a created kind. To put into a different context, you're it is like saying all languages evolved from a common ancestral language, but the "proof" of this is by showing how the letters and words of the modern English alphabet are related... yet never successfully demonstrating how English formed from western Germanic dialects, which had influences from Latin and Greek, which came from...

Nobody can seem to demonstrate beyond the use of conjecture and artist's renderings based upon the biased views of secular scientists that these significant steps... these evolving of new kinds, has ever happened. Instead we are left to imagine these major leaps happen.

Feel free to paste the URL where a new created kind has been observed in a lab or observed in nature at any time, or you can continue focusing on fixations of mutations in hopes that everyone will likewise extend their imagination that this would eventually lead to a new kind of living organism.

 

[Job 33:6]

"the mutation did not create new genetic information that was utilized"

In fact, there were observed mutations, that did in fact observably create new genetic information that was utilized to increase fitness of the ecoli observed in the experiment.

Why can't you understand this?

Are you unable to comprehend this simple, factual observation?

This has nothing to do with whether or not the e.coli turned into tetrapods. It has nothing to do with Darwins finches or the galapagos islands. It has nothing to do with the observed mutation resulting in citrate consumption. It has nothing to do with germanic dialects. Quit trying to change the subject.

Its a simple straightforward statement about what was factually observed in the experiment. Do you accept this observation, or will you simply deny that it happened?

If you deny it, then you are wrong. Either because you haven't read the research (which is possible) and don't know what you are talking about, or because you're in denial. Or perhaps you think the whole experiment was just made up and that none of it ever happened.

 

[4x4toy]

Now what ?
Researchers at the University of Idaho ran an experiment on E. coli strains to see if they could ''evolve'' aerobic citrate utilization as Lenski's lab had finally achieved after 33,000 generations, which took 15 years. They showed that a mere 12 generations were needed to see the beginnings of citrate utilization and a mere 100 generations to see the refinement of it. Again, no new genes arose, only the duplication and rearrangement of existing genes.
And what happened to the fruit flies a while back all science was excited about ?