Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[Job 33:6]

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 ?

You and noble mouse clearly have not read the research. The researchers have observed reversions, insertions, deletions, substitutions, insertion sequence mutations, element insertions, and duplications such as the one you had mentioned. Much more than just that single duplication. All of which, fixated via natural selection.

So, back to noble mouses original statement.

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

In fact, many mutations, insertions, deletions, reversions, duplications, subtitutions and more, 40+ beneficial mutations, were observed to have fixated and were utilized, as the ecoli increased in fitness.

And the above referenced mutations, have created new genetic information that has been utilized.

And its still happening. And its still being observed.

Do you understand 4x4?

And, it is irrelevant whether these mutations occurred by 500 generations, 1000, 10,000, 20,000, 40,000, 60000 etc. It really doesn't matter when these mutations occurred, the fact is, they occurred. It was observed, and they have produced new DNA that did not historically exist, in combinations and orders that did not historically exist. And those mutations were fixated via natural selection, which resulted in increased fitness and alterations in phenotypic properties of the bacteria.

 

[4x4toy]

 

[4x4toy]

You and noble mouse clearly have not read the research. The researchers have observed reversions, insertions, deletions, substitutions, insertion sequence mutations, element insertions, and duplications such as the one you had mentioned. Much more than just that single duplication. All of which, fixated via natural selection.

So, back to noble mouses original statement.

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

In fact, many mutations, insertions, deletions, reversions, duplications, subtitutions and more, 40+ beneficial mutations, were observed to have fixated and were utilized, as the ecoli increased in fitness.

And the above referenced mutations, have created new genetic information that has been utilized.

And its still happening. And its still being observed.

Do you understand 4x4?

And, it is irrelevant whether these mutations occurred by 500 generations, 1000, 10,000, 20,000, 40,000, 60000 etc. It really doesn't matter when these mutations occurred, the fact is, they occurred. It was observed, and they have produced new DNA that did not historically exist, in combinations and orders that did not historically exist. And those mutations were fixated via natural selection, which resulted in increased fitness and alterations in phenotypic properties of the bacteria.

I think I read you pretty good Bro , you have too much invested in your view to see you have nothing ..

 

[dcalling]

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.

As you know, E. coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. So how does the researcher know if they really found new DNA or just DNA that is different then their base strains?

They only picked certain strain of E.coli from the base (can't remember their numbers), and how do you know if their "new DNA" is really new or just something that fits in the possible mutation enumerations and already exists in the wild or maybe even in the lab?

By the way I answered your question, and you are welcome to educate me on your map. Would you mind to learn programming and show me that you understand my question as well?

 

[Job 33:6]

As you know, E. coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. So how does the researcher know if they really found new DNA or just DNA that is different then their base strains?

They only picked certain strain of E.coli from the base (can't remember their numbers), and how do you know if their "new DNA" is really new or just something that fits in the possible mutation enumerations and already exists in the wild or maybe even in the lab?

A mutation is a mutation. Right. Either it was DNA previously existent in an ancestral population (old DNA), or it was mutated and new. And it is known that these mutations didnt previously exist in their respective ancestral populations, because their entire genomes (both ancestral and current) were sequenced.

Also, we both know that these organisms grew in size, changed shape, and increased in fitness as a product of these new combinations, changes and newly accumulated DNA, as a product of mutational differences.

Also, Lets say hypothetically, 2 populations in two separate beakers underwent the same mutation, one after another and both formed new DNA which match one another. Just because one underwent a certain mutation of a certain gene at time X, and one underwent the same mutation of the same gene at time Y, it doesn't mean that the DNA that was mutated, is not "new" to each population.

 

[Job 33:6]

The bottom line is, noble mouse was incorrect.

 

[4x4toy]

You're coming apart, try to hold it together dude .. Get back with us when one of your bacteria is transforming into a galapagos tortoise like they believe the finches did ''so to speak'' ..

 

[dcalling]

For a bacteria that "that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity", i.e have only about 20% similar DNA, you are very bald to claim that for only 10 years the lab has totally new DNA that does not exist before. Remember this is a long term evolution test, we are not trying to see what already exists in the wild before, we are trying to see what possible things this e.coli virus can evolve into.

So the first step should be compare to all existing strands and see if all we are seeing are just permutations of existing ones, and then we can know how many new strands this can evolve into (or if there is no mutation barrier, as you keep repeating on, which means in theory you believe e.coli can evolve into a six foot multi-eyed monster in n billion years).

A mutation is a mutation. Right. Either it was DNA previously existent in an ancestral population (old DNA), or it was mutated and new. And it is known that these mutations didnt previously exist in their respective ancestral populations, because their entire genomes (both ancestral and current) were sequenced.

Also, we both know that these organisms grew in size, changed shape, and increased in fitness as a product of these new combinations, changes and newly accumulated DNA, as a product of mutational differences.

Also, Lets say hypothetically, 2 populations in two separate beakers underwent the same mutation, one after another and both formed new DNA which match one another. Just because one underwent a certain mutation of a certain gene at time X, and one underwent the same mutation of the same gene at time Y, it doesn't mean that the DNA that was mutated, is not "new" to each population.

 

[Job 33:6]

New DNA is new DNA. Doesn't matter if its 1 mutation or a billion. Doesn't matter if its 1% of the genome or 100%.

The research records observation of new DNA formed via mutation, accumulating in new combinations and sequences. These mutations were observed to produce changes in size and shape of the bacteria and resulted in increased fitness as this new DNA was utilized by the e.coli in competition against ancestral strains.

" you are very bald "

My hair is not falling out, thank you.

It has been joyful speaking with you dcalling. I'll be on my way now, all the best in your search.

 

[dcalling]

For a bacteria that "that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity", i.e have only about 20% similar DNA, how do you know those same mutations does not already exists in natural? Did they just compare with the base or all e.coli DNA? As noted before even the cit+ trait was already observed before.

New DNA is new DNA. Doesn't matter if its 1 mutation or a billion. Doesn't matter if its 1% of the genome or 100%.

The research records observation of new DNA formed via mutation, accumulating in new combinations and sequences. These mutations were observed to produce changes in size and shape of the bacteria and resulted in increased fitness as this new DNA was utilized by the e.coli in competition against ancestral strains.

" you are very bald "

My hair is not falling out, thank you.

It has been joyful speaking with you dcalling. I'll be on my way now, all the best in your search.

 

[mathinspiration]

Dawkins doesn't believe in God or in wolves. Wolves have the same DNA as dogs as oppose to apes and man. Wolf is a dog the same way a dog is wolf regardless of breed. Where there are wolves, there are dogs opposed where they are chimps, they are people.

 

[The Barbarian]

In the context of protozoa to man?

Rather, protozoans (actually protists) and humans have a common ancestor. Genetics, biochemistry, existing transitionals, etc. all show us that this is true.

Never has been and never will be seen.

I know you want to believe it has not, but in the face of the evidence, and lacking any scriptural support for your new beliefs, it's not very reasonable to believe it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I featured some quotes and information that show, despite what Gould was trying to claim, the literature shows macroevolution is not seen.

Speciation is an observed fact. No point in denying it. The only escape is to re-define "macro-evolution" to mean "evolution so great that no person could live long enough to observe it." Which is what most creationists do.

It would appear that careful domestic breeding, whatever it may do to improve the quality of race horses or cabbages, is not actually in itself the road to the endless biological deviation which is evolution. [Eiseley]

So the argument is "evolution can't do everything, so it doesn't exist." Do you understand how feeble an argument that actually is?

The improvements that have been made by selection in these [domesticated breeds] have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these improvements to be made.

And this time, it's "evolution that improves fitness for a population in one environment, often reduced fitness for that population in another environment, so evolution is false." Just as feeble an objection. These are parts of Darwin's theory; he discussed them in his book.

More telling is Stephen Gould himself who says that you can't change some geometric shapes into others and in the same way some animal forms can't be changed into others also. He quotes classical scholar D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson as saying.

"An algebraic curve has its fundamental formula, which defines the family to which it belongs. . . . We never think of “transforming” a helicoid into an ellipsoid, or a circle into a frequency curve. So it is with the forms of animals. We cannot transform an invertebrate into a vertebrate, nor a coelenterate into a worm, by any simple and legitimate deformation. . . . Nature proceeds from one type to another. . . . To seek for steppingstones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, forever."

And yet sponges are transitional between colonial animals and multi-celled animals (choanoflagellates). And tunicates are transitional between chordates and invertebrates. And so on. Would you like some details?

I could quote more but read my article for the rest. I should mention that Dawkins, in the Greatest Show on Earth, mentions dog breeds, for instance, as evidence of macroevolution without giving any evidence of the possibility of evolution beyond that.

Honest creationists admit that speciation is a fact. Some of them admit the fact of new genera and families of organisms. So your own people are undercutting this argument.

 

[NobleMouse]

Rather, protozoans (actually protists) and humans have a common ancestor. Genetics, biochemistry, existing transitionals, etc. all show us that this is true.



I know you want to believe it has not, but in the face of the evidence, and lacking any scriptural support for your new beliefs, it's not very reasonable to believe it.

Obtuse remarks from every angle. #1 you repeatedly fail to present evidence for macroevolution despite saying there is - all you've demonstrated is small variations within a created kind then added conjecture to make the mental leap to assume this aggregates to macroevolution, #2 these are not my "new" beliefs - this has always been true (not sure where you would even get that from), and #3 read Genesis and Exodus 20:11 and you will find nothing but support that God created life in 6 days and zero support for a billions-of-years evolutionary process - that's from the word of God, that is real, scriptural support. I don't know why you have blanked out such that you think the view that God created life in 6 days is not found in scripture - ridiculous. Read your bible and believe it.

Since you are trying to pick this debate up from a different thread where I already told you I would not respond to more of your conjecture without real support demonstrating evolution beyond just the observable small changes that occur within a created kind... it has to be something that actually demonstrates a new kind being created, this will likewise be my last response to you here as well.

Good day.

 

[The Barbarian]

Obtuse remarks from every angle. #1 you repeatedly fail to present evidence for macroevolution despite saying there is

Directly observed. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words. And as you have been reminded, honest YE creationists have already admitted there is strong evidence for macroevolution. Would you like me to show you, again?

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

As you can see, Dr. Wise believes in YE creationism, but is honest enough to admit that transitional forms are "surely strong evidence" for macroevolutionary theory.

these are not my "new" beliefs

No older than the 20th century. YE creationism was invented by the Seventh Day Adventists in the 20th century. Before that, even creationists accepted an old Earth.

Even back in St. Augustine's time, Christians realized that the "yom" of Genesis did not mean literal days. That's a very modern revision. If you'd accept the Bible without your new changes, you'd realize this.

Since you are trying to pick this debate up from a different thread where I already told you I would not respond to more of your conjecture without real support demonstrating evolution beyond just the observable small changes that occur within a created kind...

Your fellow YE creationist has spent many years studying the issue. He freely admits that there is strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. No point in denying it.

this will likewise be my last response to you here as well.

Doesn't seem like a very good idea. I'll be able to comment on the issues you bring up, but you won't be able to comment on mine. But it's up to you.

Good day.

You too. May God bless and keep you.

 

[4x4toy]

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't know that Dawkins is black.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Dawkins presents a counterfeit forgery of evolution based on a selfish gene concept. True evolution is based in synergy and co-evolution. This actually goes back to the debate between Harvard Professors Stephen Jay Gould & Ernst Mayr. Someone had to carry on the heresy that began with Gould.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dawkins presents a counterfeit forgery of evolution based on a selfish gene concept. True evolution is based in synergy and co-evolution. This actually goes back to the debate between Harvard Professors Stephen Jay Gould & Ernst Mayr. Someone had to carry on the heresy that began with Gould.

Wouldn't be Dawkins. Gould has some rather strong criticism of the "selfish gene" ideas.

In the introductory chapter the author points out that there have been many conflicts in biology. Still, few have been as public or as polemical as the one between Dawkins and Gould. Dawkins sees evolution as a competition between gene lineages, where organisms are vehicles for those genes. Gould, a palaeontologist in the tradition of George Gaylord Simpson, has a different perspective. For example, he sees chance as very important, and views organisms as being more important than genes. Their broader world views also differ, for instance they have very different beliefs about the relationship between religion and science.
Dawkins vs. Gould - Wikipedia

Stephen Gould was opposed to the strict adaptionist approach, recognizing the fact that " time and chance happeneth to them all."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Stephen Gould was opposed to the strict adaptionist approach, recognizing the fact that " time and chance happeneth to them all."

Exactly. He was of the opinion that if you started all over again at the beginning then you would end up with totally different results. This is the opposite of evo devo that tells us the laws are universal and anywhere you go in the universe you are going to end up with pretty much the same results. Gould is also opposed to the Bible where we are told that God knows the end from the beginning.

The point being that both Dawkins and Gould promote a counterfeit forgery. Niles Eldredge jumps on the bandwagon to help him promote punctuated equilibrium. So we now have extinctions followed by radiations or population explosions. Which brings us back into the arena of catastrophic or rapid events that Darwin was so opposed to. Back when he tried to adapt Lyell's geology theory to Biology.

The issue is if we look at Oroville Dam we see that 100,000 cubic feet of water per second brings about catastrophic change. Just like it takes 100,000 cubic feet per second of force to create the Grand Canyon. So even in geology and environmental engineering we can laugh at their gradualism because if they do not take catastrophic theory into consideration then we have a disaster on our hands. Again we need this sort of dualism for our brain to work and function. (comedy & tragedy)

Now we have Neil deGrasse talking about the need to be prepared for catastrophic events that makes Oroville look like child's play. They use to talk about how we need to be prepared for whatever nature throws our way and the rejection of catastrophic theory causes people to NOT be prepared. Just like the Bible talks about building on a solid foundation. In Florida we know that they have to build three feet about sea level and they have to be able to deal with wind up to 130 MPH. The third world countries that fail to do this tend to get hit very hard when the storms of life hit them. (Dr Dino ended up in jail for 10 years because of his rejection of this sort of government intervention in the building codes)

So it does not matter if Gould and Dawkins agrees or not. Satan wants anarchy and if he can get his soldiers to fight with each other then all the better to create confusion and distract people from the truth. The tree of knowledge represents good and evil. There is not really a third option this is a comparison system and our brains tends to function with this sort of dualism. So even if we have two antithesis they are still opposed to the truth. Error is still error and it is going to fail while truth is still going to be true and everlasting. For me I am not looking for failure, I have already seen plenty of that. I am looking for what is eternal and everlasting and what is not going to fail.

So in an effort to tie this all together for the people that accuse me of jumping around from subject to subject. We have a situation today where we have good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error. We started off with a singularity of good and we end up with a singularity of good. So for now we need to overcome evil and that includes the antithesis of a false and counterfeit evolutionary theory. With science this begins with Abraham and the city of Ur and the Chaldean's. They had truth and error mixed together. He was called to come out from among them to take a stand for the truth and oppose the error.