Archive for Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Speaker stands behind theory

January 24, 2006

Advertisement

Intelligent design proponent William Dembski stood on an empty stage Monday at the Lied Center.

Organizers of the event had tried in advance to get a science professor to spar with him, but all who were asked declined.

Dembski, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., expounded on the theory and criticized evolution before a nearly packed auditorium.

"I hope that tonight shows that there is substance to this science," said Mark Brown, director of Campus Crusade, which invited Dembski to campus. "Real science should pursue the truth. Truth is the friend of science and religion equally."

Dembski's statements were met with both applause and heckles.

To Jack Krebs, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, a group critical of intelligent design, Dembski was floundering in a substanceless middle ground somewhere between science and religion.

"It was not science and it was not religion," Krebs said. "Therefore it was fairly uneventful in my mind."

Dembski defined intelligent design and stated his case for the theory that posits that life's complexity supports the existence of a creator or designer.

Intelligent design is "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence," Dembski said.

He offered his lessons on bacterial flagellum as support for intelligent design. The question, he said, is how do you get to a full-blown flagellum.

"What needs to happen if you're going to tell an evolutionary story is you have to take a story of gradual change and at each point there has to be some sort of selective advantage," he said. "And that is the difficulty."

Dembski said the evidence is just not there that evolutionary mechanisms can do the sort of design work that he was pointing to, and biology fails to explain life.

The expert also rebutted statements he said were made by Leonard Krishtalka, director of KU's Biodiversity Institute and a vocal critic of intelligent design.

Krishtalka has called intelligent design "nothing but creationism in a cheap tuxedo." Dembski said Krishtalka later replaced "cheap" with "expensive."

And Dembski said intelligent design receives nowhere near the financial support that evolution does.

Dembski is the author of "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design." His studies include the areas of psychology, statistics, philosophy, math and theology.

Though a self-described Christian,he says he first turned to intelligent design theory as a math student.

Dembski was asked about his response to a recent decision handed down in the Dover, Pa., intelligent design trial. The judge in that case said intelligent design could not be separated from religion and does not belong in public science classrooms.

Dembski replied that he doesn't believe the ruling will be crucial for the advancement of intelligent design theory.

"Another thing about this case is it's not going to the Supreme Court," He said. "It's one narrow ruling."

When asked about how biology teachers should teach intelligent design theory, Dembski said teachers should "go as far as you can."

Don Weiss, a candidate for the State Board of Education who is trying to unseat a conservative who helped redefine science in the state's public school curriculum, attended the event.

"I think it's always good to listen to your opposition," Weiss said. "The more you know about them, the better you can fight them."

Jonathan Jenkins, a KU sophomore and intelligent design proponent, said he came to learn.

Jenkins said he thinks both evolution and intelligent design are faith-based ways of thinking about science.

"They should be taught side by side," he said.

Comments

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

I have not had much luck in finding a good definition of evolution. Which is quite enlightening considering both sides of the issue seem to know exactly what it is. You are right, from what I've found, most scientists don't believe in spontaneous evolution. However, there are many variations of beliefs.

With still not knowing what "evolution" is, and not being able to discover what it is, I can only conclude either I am not even capable of comprehension at the 7th grade level, or "evolution" is such a complex subject and it is not very likely 7th graders could really understand it. I would think 7th graders are more interested in what clothes they are wearing and what the opposite sex is doing rather than the issues of evolution.

One problem, which others have brought up, is the idea of peer-reviewed. While peer-reviewed journals have their place, it is not the only way "truth" is conveyed. As others have pointed out, Darwin's book was not peer-reviewed, and one journal article I pointed was peer-reviewed. However, some say Darwin's ideas were correct, and the article was "snuck" into the journal. Also, its been pointed out that peer-reviewed means subject to correction. With these ideas, just because something is in a peer-reviewed scientific journal does not mean it is the only truth, nor does it mean it is true. It just may not have been corrected.

Keeping with that idea, 7th grade science textbooks are more of the current political tide than any scientific truth. I do remember my public school textbooks said life came from non-life and evolved to higher forms. I don't fully recall, but thought it happened due to random processes.

What "evolution" is defined as, I don't know. Only bits and pieces have been defined on this forum. But, I don't think it is basic 7th grade science. To claim it as such is only a belittling tactic.

A more relevant question to the issue at hand would be, "What is currently taught as 'evolution' which creationists object to?" Maybe if that is clarified, maybe there would be no objection. Maybe there is no blind faith being taught as science which creationists feel a need to confront. And then there would be no need of discussions of whether to include intelligent design in science class.

fossilhunter 9 years, 4 months ago

Has anyone made an argument for ID without mentioning "bacterial flagellum" or "irreducible complexity"?

fossilhunter 9 years, 4 months ago

Because if someone from KU went then KU funds would have to go to pay for the event. As it was, it was a privately funded speech by Campus Crusade. Also, there would be no way that a scientist would have been given a fair shake. The "debate" would have been skewed in Dembski's favor.

Mercat 9 years, 4 months ago

I'm reading the book, Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel. In it is a wonderful discussion of the questions of science and religion. Galileo, often considered the patron saint and martyr of the pro-science people, believed profoundly in a Divine Creator as revealed through the Bible and the Roman Catholic Church. He saw nature as part of the revelation of that Creator. The book makes it clear that he was supported (both professionally and financially) by many members of the Church and that his suppression, which was mild, was mostly politics.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 4 months ago

Nearly everything about the formation and history of the Roman Catholic Church has been political.

tolawdjk 9 years, 4 months ago

ID propaganda in the Lied Center.

Snake Oil sales in the lobby.

Maybe he didn't read the Dover judges paper. While it may have been a "narrow" ruling the judge spent copious amounts of time explaining that ID isn't science.

Well, except in Kansas.

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 4 months ago

Same old played out ID creationist arguments.

Irreducible complexity is false and is not supported by experiment and data. The bacterial flagellum was in fact derived from molecular assemblies with other functions in the cell and these functions remain intact and functional even if the flagellum is disrupted.

The other argument boils down to "It looks like things were designed". This is not science. The sun looks like it revolves around the Earth and the Earth looks flat.

And in fact, life does not "look like it was designed". Biological systems "look like" they were assembled ad hoc, from existing structures and assemblages.

ID creationism is nonsense.

moveforward 9 years, 4 months ago

I would like to hear from or meet just one advocate of intellegent design who is not a christian.

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 4 months ago

Armi-man: I just posted some fact-based arguments you so desire. If you wish to debate molecular genetics and developmental biology and evolutionary biology, I would be happy to do so.

Please, however, no cutting and pasting of large tracts of text from creationist websites. Read the material and form your own arguments. Volume of text means nothing, as does the simple act of writing down ideas (this does not make them true). Please back up your arguments with scientific and biological data and experiments.

badger 9 years, 4 months ago

You know, TOB, I know that I've stopped paying a lot of attention to people who want to 'debate' ID because they're just looking for the attention in a lot of cases.

I'm starting to view the whole ID/Creationism/evolution debate kind of the same way I'd view a stock pond. The more you stir up the BS, the longer it's going to stink.

At this point, they've had their say. A federal court has said they're pushing a tarted-up version of creationism. I've listened to them, and been unsurprised when they failed to produce any thought of scientific merit. I've asked them point-blank questions they either couldn't or wouldn't answer, and until they're ready to come back with peer-reviewed study and some proof of their point that doesn't ultimately reference the JudeoChristian Bible when it's pushed far enough, I feel comfortable not giving them any more of my time.

They don't even actually have to have published specific intelligent design papers. I'd settle for a single theory entirely grounded in peer-reviewed science.

fossilhunter 9 years, 4 months ago

Armi.....please see my post above. There was no cowardice in not "debating". KU shouldn't fund ID propoganda.

Jamesaust 9 years, 4 months ago

I don't find it surprising that there was no one to debate this character.

What again is the ID'er scientific theory? Oh yeah, they don't have one. Just mumbo-jumbo and God is the missing link. What the ID'ers wanted was to attack science in pithy one-liners before an audience of questionable scientific literacy, thereby elevating ID to the status of some alternative to reason and fact.

There's nothing there about ID to debate. If you want to believe the earth is 6,000 years old, that the EU is the seed of Satan's dominion, or that a 5 year old was hidden away as the 12th imam of Shi-ism, go ahead. But those are not ideas supported by reason or fact and hence are not amenable to debate. Indeed, people like this character would be the first to claim oppression if some government-employee started making fun of his religious beliefs.

webmocker 9 years, 4 months ago

Hypothesis: Intelligent design would require the orifice through which we take in oxygen to be separated from the orifice through which we take in food, to reduce choking incidents.

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Try reading some of Dembski books. He uses many mathematical arguments in his books that have been shown to be completely meaningless. He also shows a lack of understanding in many of the scientific concepts that he professes to be an expert on. An example of this is his discourse on the Laws of Thermodynamics. He claims there are only 3 of them but there are actually 4 of them. He tries to present evidence for ID that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Why would anyone want to argue with someone who lacks the understanding of basic scientific concepts. It is like flat earth society complaining about physicists not debating them about the earth being flat. Irreducible complexity is a term from information theory which actually indicates a condition of randomness not design.

badger 9 years, 4 months ago

Arminius:

It was (and remains) a truism that courage does not mean agreeing to fight every yayhoo who gets liquored up on his own PR and wants to throw down with you.

If I'm a professional boxer, does it make sense for me to jump into every barfight I see, just because there's fighting there? What would be the point of that?

You can say they 'lacked cojones' but some of us learned on the playground that if you fight every moron who wants to fight you, all you really get for your troubles is bruised knuckles and a lot of detention; no matter how many times you bounce their heads off of the jungle gym, some morons never learn.

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 4 months ago

Armi-man:

I thought so. Only empty attacks.

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 9 years, 4 months ago

The fact that nobody had the guts to debate this guy is interesting....very interesting.

CalGal 9 years, 4 months ago

<<Posted by Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) on January 24, 2006 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The fact that nobody had the guts to debate this guy is interesting....very interesting.>>

Book 'im, Danno!

Kam, suggest you go back and read the other posts. This was already addressed and answered.

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Arminius,

You just blow me away with your intelligent responses such as "If research includes putting your head up your ass, that's probably a safe wager." Man that is really intelligent.

Really Armi are we bored today? No where else to go? Why are you bringing your little rantings and ravings concerning liberals onto a discussion board about ID. Instead of name calling and politics, why not discuss what you obviously think are "facts" concerning ID.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

wendt: are you that little man who was rude and obnoxious during the question time?

fossilhunter 9 years, 4 months ago

Darn it Wendt - you went and used big words and scared them away...

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 4 months ago

Was Phelps and his krew at the Dembski speech? I heard they were at the Bush event.

hobb2264 9 years, 4 months ago

Arminius,

Are you arguing for (1) Intelligent Design being taught in science class rooms (2) Evolution not being taught in science class rooms or (3) are you just arguing against social liberalism in general? As much as I hate to agree with wendt and his cronies, I don't see how ID can be rationalized into science. I will take it the next step and say I don't see how any "theory" on origins can be rationalized as science. If we can not teach ID as science, don't teach big bang or primordial soup theories either...they lack just as much scientific evidence as ID.

Next, as long as evidence continues to support evolution, there is no way we can responsibly take it out of the classroom. We just need to be careful that the theory is not extended beyond the data that justifies it.

Finally...keep trashing the liberals. That is funny stuff. :-)

badger 9 years, 4 months ago

Mostly I think Arminius is just arguing against wendt, more than anything else, hobb.

I imagine that if wendt pulled a 180 on all his opinions and started arguing them from the other side, Arminius would find some bone to pick with him, and if Arminius pulled a 180 on all his opinions, wendt would still find a bone to pick with him.

See my earlier post on the lack of necessity of jumping into a fight just because the other guy is there and his face is punch-able. When these two get around each other, there's no amount of bouncing their heads off jungle gyms that'll get them to stop laying into each other.

hobb2264 9 years, 4 months ago

That is a good theory badger....here's an even better one. Maybe wendt = arminius. The dual-natured wendt/arminius being is just arguing against him/herself. Just a thought.

badger 9 years, 4 months ago

Oh, I've no time to keep track of who is someone else on the boards.

I've just decided to accept that even if two IDs are the same person, it's just a matter of MPD.

hobb2264 9 years, 4 months ago

"The canon of academic freedom is very clear: no one idea is to find corporate favor in educational institutions over another; clear, too, are the ringing declarations of the open society, which stress the need for a respectful attention to dissenting views."

I agree with the first sentence to a point. I think academic freedom does imply and necessitate open-mindedness. However, I don't think that the ID debate falls into this category. ID falls out of the realm of science because it is not a falsifiable argument scientifically. There is not a scientific test I can perform in the lab or in nature that will prove there is an intelligent designer/God. As a Christian, this does not bother me, because it does not mean He does not exist...and it also does not mean that I can not infer His presence by the natural world around me. People should stop trying to prove His existence scientifically, because it is impossible.

"From what I have read, there are too many holes in the theory of evolution, yet the evolutionists want to argue that they have all the answer and berate all who point out that they do not."

As I said earlier, we should not take evolution beyond the data that justifies it. Nobody has all the answers...not even the great wendt/arminius. :-)

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 4 months ago

The duality argument of Arminiwendt is a good one.

wendt = reason and moderation arminius = dogma and extremism

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 4 months ago

"no one idea is to find corporate favor in educational institutions over another"

This is wrong and intellectually lazy. Academia is not a "group hug" where everybody is right and there are no wrong ideas. What a sloppy liberal attitude.

What is true is that in academia, ideas should receive a proper vetting and should not be dismissed because of dogma or prejudice.

ID creationism has been vetted by science and was found to be untenable and unsupported.

Mr_Christopher 9 years, 4 months ago

Let's not forget William Dembski chickened out of debating Ken Miller last month at Case Universisty. After he had originally accepted.

He also said he did not have to "stoop to the pathetic level of detail" that Ken Miller had requested. Basically Ken Miller let the charlatan and theologian Dembski know he would be asking for proof of Dembski's "theory".

Then William Dembski chickened out after he had said he would debate Miller. Miller was left on an empty stage...

Here are the fact, intelligent design creationism has been around for 15 years and they have still not produced a shred of scientific evidence to support their claims.

Intelligent design creationism lost in one court case, surrendered in another. The fact that no one in the science comminity takes these creationists or their staged "debates" seriously should not be shocking.

Mr_Christopher 9 years, 4 months ago

Hey look, no scientists showed up at an event sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ cult. Shocking!

To learn more about the organization who organized and sponsored this event (Campus Crusade For Christ) go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_Crusade_for_Christ

Yeah, BIG surprise that no legitimate scientist showed up at a Christian crusade event. I wouldn't have shown up either. Talking about science to a group of true believers is not exactly a debate.

And this LJWorld article fails to mention that Dembski does not teach science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, he teaches Christian propaganda. You can see his idiotic course details here

http://www.designinference.com/#Teaching

They do not teach science there nor do they indulge in any scientific research. Dembski is a theologian, not a biologist or a scientist.

And Dembski says the evolutionary evidence is not there to explain bacterial flagellum. Behe made the same ignorant claim while under oath. He was even given over 50 scientific papers and texbooks that support it yet Behe and Dembski thumb their noses at legitimate scientific evidence prefering unscientific and unspported creationism theories instead.

Yeah no one showed up to debate the Christian Crusader for intelligent design creationism. BIG surprise.

You want the real debate on intelligent design? Read the Dover transcripts and the final ruling. There were expert witnesses on both sides of the debate. In case you haven't hear, the ID side of the debate lost on a wholesale level.

Dembski will be the first to admit this ID creationism versus evoltuion is not about science. It is a culture war being waged by the Discovery Institute and their army of true believers.

DuQuesne 9 years, 4 months ago

Proponents of ID suffer a profound fear, peculiar to the small-minded. They fear that, without the over-arching protection of an agency (God) upon which to hang responsibility for their own creation and upon whose glory to hitch their destiny-wagon, they will have to fall back on their own inadequate devices to determine right from wrong. (Salon.com interview with Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center.) Surely, being mere humans (although claiming the apex of creation), we cannot possibly have any way to determine right from wrong without the omniscient guidance of a God - "Great Sky-Father" - who himself exhibits the manners and ethics of a spoiled child. Further, creationists (creationism and ID are the same, essentially), like most blind followers of any theology, must constantly seek to validate and reify their own world view by proselytizing to unbelievers, increasing their number and as much as possible insulating themselves from conflicting world views.

It's not my job to prove the earth is round; it's my job to help round up all those who believe it's flat and push them off the edge.

-Schuyler DuQuesne

hobb2264 9 years, 4 months ago

ArminiWentd said-

"Hobb2264 is slowly coming to the realization that this scientific liberal might be correct about Intelligent Design / Creationism after all. That's good!!

When he does, maybe he will also see that there is nothing personal in this little educational thread of basic science protocols."

Hahaha...sorry, just had to laugh at your comments. Nothing you have said has ever swayed my opinion one way or another about ID. I have never thought teaching ID in the science classroom was a good idea. I have never supported the BOE's decision. I have played devil's advocate several times to point out that some of the extrapolations from evolutionary theory are just as non-scientific as ID.

I'm not sure why you feel that I have taken any of your comments personally. Most of your (Arminius/Wendt) comments are just worth a good laugh...

Bradley Kemp 9 years, 4 months ago

"'I just posted some fact-based arguments you so desire.'

"You might want to learn how to write a coherent sentence first. That first one makes no sense."

Wrong. Apparently you don't get it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a coherent sentence. Here's how it works. There are some fact-based arguments, and you desire to read them to an extent suitable for the use of the idiom "to so desire." ("I so desired her lips that I was drawn to them as if by an invisible force.") Your correspondent just posted some of those facts. Thus, he or she writes, "I just posted some fact based arguments you so desire."

Don't think that just because you can't parse a sentence no one else can, either.

"Yesterday at the Lied Center would have been an ideal time and place to debate this. It's a shame Krishtalka and Krebs lacked the cojones to debate Dembski. I guess I can understand their reluctance. After all, Dembski has more training in the sciences than both of them."

Krishtalka would be happy to debate a scientific theory of intelligent design. But there is isn't one. He's not qualified to debate theological topics or the dreamy ideas of megalomaniacs, so he demurs.

wonderhorse 9 years, 4 months ago

Arminius

The only problem with Krishtalka debating facts with Dembski is that Dembski has none. Once again I ask for just one peer-reviewed article on ID. There isn't one, thus, K. cannot debate D., because D. has no facts, just a belief.

yourworstnightmare 9 years, 4 months ago

First of all, I don't see how science is a liberal/conservative issue. The attitude seems to be that the scientific establishment is composed of liberals and that science is liberal propaganda. I have heard this from ID creationsist before: that facts, logic, and objectivity are a politcal agenda.

Second, a debate using the facts and formal familiarity with the subject would be welcomed. ID creationism is not about facts and, as Mr. Christopher pointed out earlier, Dembski et al. get very upset and run away when details and facts are argued. This is because he knows that ID creationism is not supported by facts. He would rather demagogue using half-truths and pseudoscience to appeal to those with an ideological bent and some (but not alot) knowledge about science.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 4 months ago

"You and I both know that the case against Saddam included much, much more than seeking yellowcake from Niger. Stop acting stupid."

What was that case, Kevin? Not the case they (and you) are now making. Let's hear the case that was made before the invasion. The one the country was asked to consider before thousands of Americans would be asked to sacirifice their lives, and in which many thousands more would become debilitated and maimed for the rest of their lives, and the one which will easily cost us more than one trillion dollars (upwards of $3,000 per man, woman and child.) The one that has plunged Iraq into civil war, and created thousands (millions?) of potential recruits for Osama bin Laden or someone else just as bloodthirsty as he, or Dubya, or maybe even you.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Ok, folks. Let's attempt to reign this back in.

Is archeology science?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 4 months ago

Unfortunately for you and other BushCo sychophants, Kevin, many were paying attention when the war drums were being pounded, and your desperate repetition of the same old tired "your with us or agin us" BS doesn't wash.

But I don't expect that will affect your behavior any. Your self-esteem is too tied up in your unquestioning loyalty.

Oh, and please call me a name, too, Kevin. It's the closest you come to a compelling argument.

Bradley Kemp 9 years, 4 months ago

"Obviously, there IS a debate. Krishtalka is afraid of such a debate and, hence, can only offer insults from the sidelines."

There is a debate. There isn't a SCIENTIFIC debate. Which is why Krishtalka, a scientist, won't engage someone like Dembski.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

wendt: "Archeology is science.

Sense-data, in the form of objects/artifacts, etc is collected and organized. Remember: science is a body of organized data.

Relationships between histories and objects/artifacts are hypothesized.

Predictions made regarding future discoveries of artifacts/objects etc.

Of course, it's really hard to get complete answers or to study the original culture. The original culture having the disadvantage of being dead.

===

The difficulty with Intelligent Design / Creationism is that there is no sense-data of the Intelligent Designer / Creator.

We don't know where he/she/it lives in space-time, how much mass he/she/it embodies, etc, etc.

Evolutionists don't deny that the Intelligent Designer exists.

Evolutionists note that no sense-data of the Intelligent Designer / Creator exist, unlike a Ming Vase or Stone Ax, hence the Intelligent Designer is outside of the realm of science.

Once we see/hear/smell/touch/taste the Intelligent Designer / Creator, we're on it.

Until then, it's myth."


I'm glad to hear archeology is science.

No one needs to understand where ancient peoples lived "in space-time, how much mass he/she/it embodies, etc, etc." to realize they produced objects/artifacts. No one has to "see/hear/smell/touch/taste" the ancient peoples to no longer say they are a myth.

Many would argue there is more than ample sense-data of Intelligent Design. And, that sense-data is highly organized (both, in itself and by scientists). Using that sense-data for one set of artifacts, scientists are able to make fairly accurate predictions regarding newly discovered artifacts. It doesn't tell about where the Designer lives/lived nor how much mass the Designer embodied. It does tell that these living objects/artifacts give all the appearance of being designed. By "appearance", I don't just mean someone looks at the surface and forms an opinion. I mean by the interaction of the interior workings of the artifacts, the relationship between the various interior workings, the relationship between the artifacts, and the relationship of the artifacts with their environment.

What attributes or "sense-data" would living artifacts need to exhibit for you to conclude they were designed?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years, 4 months ago

The only rationale for going to war was WMD and mushroom clouds and affiliation with al Qaeda, all of which have shown to have been intentional fabrications for the benefit of the oil magnates, megalomaniacs and war profiteers that make up BushCo.

"You mean like "BushCo sychophant"?"

There's a difference between a perfectly accurate descriptor and name-calling.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Wendt:

So, why DOES KU fund one form of religion, pantheism, and not other forms of religion? Why is one form of religion taught in science class, but not others?

Too bad you missed the lecture. I thought he did a good job in saying that Intelligent Design is not about religion or a creator. It is only that life exhibits signs of being designed. He said many religious activists are upset it doesn't go further and say God is the creator. Intelligent Design is not about the creator or His attributes, but about the artifacts He created.

So, coming back to my question, what attributes or "sense-data" would living artifacts need to exhibit for you to conclude they were designed?

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

I understand the difference of starting out "knowing" what is true. And, both scientists (as apposed to science) and creationists come with bias. To say you don't go into an investigation with a bias, is, well... disingenuous. Everyone has a bias. Very few can keep that bias from affecting their conclusions of the data to a great degree. I believe that is what "hypothesis" means

"Then, to make reality conform to your bias, you have to create these elaborate scenarios that keep running into reality, and the process repeats." And that is what some evolutionists keep having to do.

" No. Pantheism is independently wealthy.

No. KU is Pantheism.

No. KU already funds Pantheism.

Etc, etc, etc. "

Guess I didn't understand what you were saying before, then. I wasn't saying science is a religion, but pantheism is. Pantheism defined as nature and the universe as god. Pantheism being taught as science.

===

So, coming back to my question, what attributes or "sense-data" would living artifacts need to exhibit for you to conclude they were designed?

You seem to be avoiding it. Is it because you assume living artifacts cannot have been created? That that is a truth you approach the investigation with - a possibility you have assumed cannot be true? That you are unwilling to even imagine and hypothesize what properties a designed living artifact would exhibit? A type of cognitive dissonance? - http://www.origins.org/articles/steinman_2001principle.html

"Eventually, you develop an elaborate absurdity that no one believes."

fossilhunter 9 years, 4 months ago

gr - would you say salt is intelligently designed? I mean, it has atoms that line up in a perfect cube. That can't just be random. So when I dizzolve the salt in water, it is no longer in a cube. Did I unwittingly undo the work of the intelligent designer?

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Wendt:

"The label of Panetheism upon Science proceeds artificially from you in order to recategorize science as religion. Then the battle becomes religion vs. religion"

No, I am categorizing evolution as religion.

"Had over a hundred years to do it and all "Spontaneous Generation" has done is change it's name twice."

And it is now called "evolution"? That is what evolutionists are telling us how life began. Life spontaneously generated from inert materials. Which, as a side note, is not what Darwin believed.

You say there is no evidence of design. Then you say to even fanthom the possibility of design is biased. Not only finding design, but even attempting to specify what you would look for. You don't assume there is a Designer - you assume there is no Designer. Do you understand how what you are accusing the creationists of is the same as what the evolutionists are doing? Did you understand the cognitive dissonance principle could apply to scientists? You are applying your biases to the creationists. You are blindly closing your eye to even try to imagine it. That doesn't sound like science to me - it sounds like dogma. Evolutionists' religion precludes contemplating design.

By saying there is no evidence for design (though you keep saying designer, although design does imply designer), you are also saying there could be found evidence for design. If you look at a list and say it is not sorted, wouldn't you agree there is the possiblity some list could be found to be sorted? I'm only asking what would make that "list" sorted. What are the A-Z specifications.

I'm not even insisting a specific thing is designed and for you to accept it. I am not asking you to point out design - only what you would look for IF it was designed.

As said before, it's all about presuppositions. And, I believe you realize that.


fossilhunter:

We aren't arguing whether salt is designed or not. I am only asking what would you see as designed. Not existing things you disagree with, but your best hypothesis of what it would take for you to conclude something is designed.

Creationists are willing to look at (salt, for sake of your example) and entertain the notion it was not designed. Are evolutionists willing to entertain the notion that some yet unknown organism would exhibit attributes of design?

fossilhunter 9 years, 4 months ago

My definition of designed is pretty much worthless in this arguement -- but for what it is worth: An object that obviously has been manipulated by humans to be used for a particular purpose. i.e., a rock can be intelligently designed into an arrowhead.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

"An object that obviously has been manipulated by humans"

So by definition, your definition precludes a creator - at the least, a creator of humans. Isn't it kind of dogmatic to say an organism isn't designed when your definition doesn't allow for the possibility?

fossilhunter 9 years, 4 months ago

like I said. That's my personal definition. Nobody else's. No, I personally don't believe that an organism can be designed in the sense that humans typically define "design". Personally, I think that demeans any supreme being, because you say "Because is looks like it is designed in a way that humans would design something then it must be designed by some higher being."

Bacterial flagellum -- looks like a "motor" irreducible complexity -- mousetrap

All based on human design.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Except, some of these designs, humans don't understand how works nor can duplicate them.

Humans can't even take all the components of a working cell, lyse the cell, create the most perfect and ideal conditions, and create life from it.

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

gr,

You are mixing your arguments here. Are you talking about design or origins.

Simplicity not complexity implies design. The higher the complexity, the more likely it is random. Why would a designer create systems that not only are complex but are redundant. Redundant systems make no sense from a design perspective but clearly indicate evolutionary mechanisms. Irreducible complexity are terms that come from information theory and indicate a condition of randomness, not design.

Mr_Christopher 9 years, 4 months ago

Here is an event you all might be interested in:

Kansas Citizens For Science and the National Center for Science Education present

"Intelligent Design, Kansas Science Education, and the Law" Saturday, January 28, 2006 1:00 5:00 pm The Dole Institute of Politics 2350 Petefish Drive, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS,

Lawyers in Dover "Intelligent Design" case to speak in Lawrence, Kansas

"Intelligent design"(ID) declared unconstitutional in Dover schools! How does this apply to Kansas' state science standards?

Eric Rothschild, Steve Harvey and Richard Katskee, attorneys for the Dover plaintiffs, will discuss the legal issues raised in the Dover case. Jack Krebs, President of Kansas Citizens for Science, and Dr. Steve Case, of the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas and co-chair of the Kansas Science Standards Writing Committee will then discuss how those issues apply to the Kansas science standards.

NOTE: Seating is limited. Preference will be given to members of the educational, legal, academic, business and religious communities, and the media.

Schedule

1:00 1:15 Introductions 1:15 2:15 Eric Rothschild, Steve Harvey and Richard Katskee, attorneys for the Dover plaintiffs 2:15 2:45 Jack Krebs, President of Kansas Citizens For Science 2:45 3:00 Break, light refreshments 3:00 4:30 Panel discussion moderated by Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, followed by questions from the audience. Dr. Steve Case will join the panel. 4:30 5:00 Media interviews and individual discussions

CONTACT INFO: Reservations for seats: Phil Baringer: baringer@ku.edu Program information: Jack Krebs: jkrebs@sunflower.com 785-840-5113 © 785-832-0739 (h) Media contact: Liz Craig: lizard6849@yahoo.com 913-236-7595

.Read more about it here on the pandas thumb http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/intelligent_des_20.html#comments

And note, this is NOT being sponsored by any Christian Evangelical groups. Also note all 6 creationist Kansas school board members and the Commissioner of Education were invited, none are planning to attend. What gives?

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Kodiac: "Simplicity not complexity implies design. The higher the complexity, the more likely it is random. Why would a designer create systems that not only are complex but are redundant. Redundant systems make no sense from a design perspective but clearly indicate evolutionary mechanisms. Irreducible complexity are terms that come from information theory and indicate a condition of randomness, not design."

You're kidding, right? The space shuttle is the first, among many things, which come to mind. I believe that covers complexity and redundancy.

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Think about computers gr. Remember the move from vacuum tubes to transistors to IC to micro processors. That isn't evolution, that is by design, simplification. What did they do before the space shuttle. How did they get into space? Space exploration has been simplified because of design. Before the space shuttle, how did they bring humans back to earth. The shuttle has simplified things. Simplification is by design. Sure it is easy to say that the shuttle is more complex than the spaceships we had before but the shuttle itself is becoming simpler to operate, easier to use, and better designed as our knowledge base grows. We as humans look for simplification. I know it doesn't appear that way, but overall technology progresses toward simplification. We find better easier ways to do things from a long-term standpoint. Going from a horse and buggy to an automobile is initially more complex but the automobile itself has become more and more effecient through simplification and better design.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Wendt: "3) I can't repeat enough that I am agnostic on the subject of the existence of the Intelligent Designer / Creator. This is the third time on this blog that I've made that statement.

You seem to have an emotional investment in assigning an atheistic opinion to me.

Maybe you are unaware that there is a difference between agnostic and atheistic."

===

Sorry, I must have missed those comments. That does change things. I apologize for classifying you with those who say they know for a fact there is no Designer.

"There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer / Creator. When you can provide some, let us know so that we can confirm it through the scientific protocol.

Your boy Dembski admits that there is no scientific data. Why can't you be man enough to agree with both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski on this point."

You have kept trying to say that, but I believe I have persistently refrained from saying there is evidence of an Intelligent Designer. I am only saying there is evidence for design. In the lecture, Dembski said the same. The underlying assumption is if there is design, there is a designer.

So, what kind of evidence would you accept for design? If you cannot specify what the evidence would be, how can I present it?

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Sorry to make general statements about evolutionists. It is my opinion most are of different opinions than you. And then when you have someone like Kodiac spouting off gibberish, it's hard not to group them. I believe both creationists and evolutionists would see the problem of generalizing such a case. I hope you likewise are able to not always group me with some of the, shall we say, more colorful, creationists.


"The implication is that God / Intelligent Designer / Creator is the agent generating this new matter."

This is new information to me. Doesn't seem supported from your links:

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

"Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm"

"Yockey's publications have become favorites to quote among creationists"

Sounds as if the creationists are agreeing with Yockey that abiogenesis didn't happen. Sounds like, at least in 1977, that "current wisdom" of origins is not supported.

The conclusion I got of the wikipedia link was that the origin of life is not known. You seem to agree. Others seem to disagree - on both sides. The Access Excellence link just states the spontaneous generation idea is dead. With no qualifications. Hopefully they are only addressing a specific definition and it doesn't apply to the abiogenesis idea. It's quite apparent that some scientists still support that idea.

So, give me a challenge. What evidence do I need to give you which would indicate design in existing life (as opposed to designer)?

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

gr,

more of Kodiac's gibberish...

I also hope you read this. There are many arguments out there concerning intelligent design and the things I have talked about can be found in scientific articles and books. You may call it gibberish but it tells me that you are not open to constructive criticism or really understanding what the issues are. Try reading Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh who gives many examples of these citations and specifically looks at many of the mathematical arguments being toted by Dembski.

Wendt is right and I apologize for not bringing this up. Both Dembski and Behe often refer to functionality and will equate it to design. In order to understand what something is designed to do, you have to know what the design is, hence the reason why Wendt says "you have to know the mind of God or the designer. Your proof gr is to give us the prototype or the actual design plans. So in response to your query you can try to separate design from designer but you are still left with not knowing what the design is itself which means essentially you will never be able to present evidence for "design".

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

If we found a huge monolith on the moon, could we not conclude it was designed without knowing its purpose or function?

"Kinda like saying God has a "planned obsolescence" program."

The space shuttle was designed, but with each successive model, the older (less complex) models are retired (or maybe should be). More relevant is car models. They are "planned" for obsolescence before even being manufactured. Part of "design". Now, if you are questioning if God should plan for obsolescence, that's a different story. That is questioning the motives of the Designer rather than if something was designed. Why would someone design a space shuttle that blows up? Still doesn't mean it wasn't designed.

Fully in agreement with your selection for advantages, against disadvantages, and for neutrality. Doesn't preclude design. Actually could be supportive. As I brought up before about the remote robotic vehicle race. First time, no one made it. Next time several made it through. What a great designer if the designed object can handle expected and unexpected casualties. A more robust design! With some parts of their design, an onlooker who doesn't understand the designer's mind may question why the vehicle had that function when they saw no use of it.

I believe God wants us to understand as much as possible about Him. That's why He sent Jesus to show His character more. No blasphemy in questioning God. He designed our minds to ask, why.

But, I'm understanding you are having a hard time of accepting the possibility of design, because that would involve God. And that would bring up all kinds of questions. Is it possible to see something which you accept there is the possibility of design whether it is God or something else? Would you be able to accept it easier if some Martians had access to an element not known to us which jumpstarts life and allows them to design it? Or, if only humans can design, what if it could be shown prehistoric humans had knowledge of how to design cells? Ask yourself if you'd be more willing to accept those designers than a designer God. Then ask, why?

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Actually gr I do believe in God. Is it possible for you to understand that I can accept evolutionary theory as a fact and still believe in God? Evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation we have in understanding our natural world. There is nothing else out there. ID is not science. Even if design were true, it still happened through evolution. Evolution says nothing about religion or God. You have to ask yourself why you are trying to bring God down to the level of science. I do not need science to prove to me that God does or does not exist. It is my faith and faith alone that I know Him. You have to ask yourself why you are closing your eyes and your mind to the world in front of you. You have not commented or even asked for the enormous amount of evidence that supports evolution. You continue to ask what you need to "prove design" and then ignore the fact that what you seek is not possible. Are you really that unsure of your faith that you have to validate your belief system through science. Seek the truth gr, for the truth will set you free.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

"I submit that your desire to wedge Christianity into science classes prevents you from being objective on the issue."

That's a presumption which I've always said is untrue. Recognizing design does not mean Christinity. As you and others have refused to state what would be an indication of design reflects the opposite wedge into scieence classes.

Your repost of top 10 ten is non-relevant. Top 10 lists are nonsense for childish amusements. Though, I suppose you are trying to state something.

"If Intelligent Designer / Creator / God is such a great designer, why did he "design" evil.

Why does he not get rid of it.

Or does contradiction in what you believe not bother you."

===

Imagine, if you will, what you'd do about the problem of evil entering your creation. How would you handle it. You may have missed my other posts on the subject. Sounds as if by your reactions to evil, you'd enter your "top 10" list. Just maybe, there is a better long-term way of ending evil. God never designed evil. It was an unexpected thing which was "permited" in designing creatures with the power of choice. Otherwise, He'd be designing robots.

Just maybe, if I believed everything about God as you've heard about Him, I would be resenting believing in Him, too.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Okay, Kodiac, I'll respond.

"Evolution says nothing about religion or God. "

Actually it calls Jesus a fraud. Jesus quoted from Genesis (Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6) believing it to be true. It a calls the Bible a fraud as many other places it quotes a literal creation week.

As a side thought, where does a 7 day week come from?


"You continue to ask what you need to "prove design" and then ignore the fact that what you seek is not possible. Are you really that unsure of your faith that you have to validate your belief system through science. Seek the truth gr, for the truth will set you free."

Not possible? Closed mind? Evolution not subject to being questioned?

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Then tell me gr, where in the bible does it say "literal creation week". Jesus used a lot of symbolism in his teachings. Do you really want to know where the 7 day week comes from or are you just being ignorant gr. Think about the names of the days Saturday, Sunday, Monday, etc..... do you understand what those names refer to? Look up at the sky and see Saturn (for Saturday), the Sun (for Sunday), the moon (for Monday), Jupiter (Tuesday), Mars (Wednesday) etc. (Venus and Mercury are the other two). The seven heavenly bodies were named after Gods (thats with a plural, not one) and those names were used to create our seven day week to honor those Gods by the ancients (early egyptians, romans) So by the saying the names of the days gr, you are being heathen. By the same token, do you celebrate Christmas gr. Tell me where it says in the bible that we should celebrate christmas. Do you understand the origins of Christmas? Does that mean you are a literalist gr? I think it is you who has the closed mind.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Well, that's clever. Never had heard anyone claim that before. Guess I learn something every day. I always heard the Greeks (or whoever) applied the names to the days after the fact.

"And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."

Sounds pretty literal to me. True, there are places of symbolism in the Bible. That is not one of them. Do I pick and choose? Usually the context tells you when symbolism is used. Phrases such as, "in vision". Find any other place in the Bible where it uses evening and morning where it doesn't mean a literal day. Think beyond our english word for day.

As far as Christmas, not sure what that has to do with evolution or a literal week, but no, celebrating Christmas is not in the Bible. It was a pagan holiday. Part of the deal for the religious people to trick the heathen into "converting". (and that's a topic which has to do with what I was asking Wendt about) Depends upon what you call "celebrate", but I do celebrate Christmas. I celebrate in a toned down sort of way with the realization that it has nothing to do with Jesus time of birth, that it was based on a pagan holiday, that commercialization has robbed much of the meaning away from it. So why do I give a passing time to such a day? Some day a year, it is worth remembering Jesus birth. And with all the hoopla reminding you of it, that day is as good as any other day.

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Arminius,

I wasn't implying Jesus was in the Old Testament, only that he used alot of symbolism in his teachings. gr pointed to Jesus as being represented as a fraud by evolution because he made references to the creation story.

gr,

Many biblical scholars point to several creation stories being woven together in the Book of Genesis and that there are actually 5 different authors to the first books in the Old Testament normally attributed to only Moses. A literal interpretation of the 1 week creation story also conflicts with natural world data that indicates the age of the earth and the universe as being much much older as a Young Earth Creationist will tell you. So based on the evidence that has been observed, I do not agree with a literal interpretation of the creation week. Maybe you should take some early human civilization courses. I will say it again that evolution itself does not say anything about religion or God. There are no conflicts between evolution and my belief system.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Kodiac, you have some fantastic beliefs!

The space shuttle has become less complex. Jesus is a fraud. The thoughts of man trump God and the Bible.
God's Word is fallible, but man's word is infallible.

I can only imagine you'd be one of those who would say, God didn't create man, but yet He will burn and torture him in the end.

(1 Cor 1:19-20 NIV) For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 20) Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

As far as Jesus in the Old Testament (assuming you and Arminius mean, did Jesus exist back then) consider (John 1:1-3 NIV)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) He was with God in the beginning. 3) Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" and John 1:14,
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

I admit, there are a few conclusions of data which do not appear to agree with a young earth. However, there are many more which disagree with a old earth. It would not be wise to make a blanket statement of how the "natural world data" indicates a long age without unanimous evidence nor scientific agreement.

However, to take long ages of the earth and evolution before humans developed, you have some additional issues which contradicts the Bible. Such as, why did God "design" death. Why does the fossil record show disease, suffering, bloodshed, and death before man and sin entered? And if there was death before sin, what's the point of the cross? If sin didn't lead to suffering and death, did sin lead to anything?

(1 Cor 15:21-22 NIV) For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22) For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

(Rom 8:19-22 NIV) "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20) For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21) that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22) We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

If creation will be "liberated from its bondage to decay", what caused the bondage? "Liberated" indicates it wasn't in bondage before.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

(Gen 1:3-5 NIV) "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5) God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."

3rd set of billions of years: god created plants.

4th set of billions of years: god, said, "Oops. After millions of years, these plants are looking a little pale. Maybe they need the daily cycle of the sun." So god created the sun and the moon.

5th set of billions of years: god said, "Double oops. I can't seem to get it right. Now all these plants after many millions of years have all their seeds growing underneath the parent plants and crowding each other out. Maybe I should try to disperse them." So, god made birds and fish.

6th set of billions of years: god said, "Triple oops. Birds helped disperse plants some, but the fish didn't seem to help any. Maybe I'll try animals that move on the land."

Strange god you have there, Kodiac.

Then there are problems with saltation rates, sedimentation rates, movement of the moon away from the sun, conversion rates of hydrogen into helium, near freezing temperatures on earth when life was supposed to evolve besides all the classic problems you may be familiar with. There may not be conflicts between evolution and your belief system, but there are many conflicts between evolution and the Bible.

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

gr,

The only conflicts between evolution and the Bible are the ones where you are deciding through your own belief system and interpretations. It is clear that you ascribe to the young earth beliefs as well. Some of the topics that you mentioned are indeed part of on-going scientific discussions but you fail to understand the enormity of data that supports the fact that the earth is 4.5 billions years old. There is no argument in science regarding the age of the earth. If you want to continue discussions on the age of the earth I suggest you elaborate on your comments and we can go from there.

I will not stoop to calling God yours or strange, but I do think that your logic is strange and twisted and you have misrepresented my own words as well. For example:

"The space shuttle has become less complex. Jesus is a fraud. The thoughts of man trump God and the Bible. God's Word is fallible, but man's word is infallible."

The Space Shuttle indeed has become more efficient and less complex with better designs. We can talk about design if that is what you want to talk about but I think you might be better enlightened if you were to actually read some books about design and information theory.

I never said Jesus was a fraud. You said Jesus was a fraud. I have never said the thoughts of man trump God nor have I said man's word is infallible. These are your statements based on your interpretation of what I said. I think the bible is one of many sacred texts that we have as a means to understanding God. I read many texts that I think are sacred which have all been written by humans and they include the Bible, the Quran, Zorhaster texts, the Book of Mormon, written works by Rumi, buddhist texts, among many others.

gr says:

"but there are many conflicts between evolution and the Bible"

Again this is your belief system gr. This is how you are interpreting the bible and assigning your own definitions to what it means. This is a very narrow and strict belief system. You are not open to different possibilities. You are clearly close-minded.

So in the end here we are gr, you are arguing from a belief system not based on scientifc facts or data.

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

Kodiac says:

gr says:

"but there are many conflicts between evolution and the Bible"

Again this is your belief system gr. This is how you are interpreting the bible and assigning your own definitions to what it means. This is a very narrow and strict belief system. You are not open to different possibilities. You are clearly close-minded.

So in the end here we are gr, you are arguing from a belief system not based on scientifc facts or data.


So, likewise, one could conclude that it is your belief system that there are not conflicts between evolution and the Bible. It is how you assign your own definitions to what it means.

If you are random molecules, not designed by God, how do you know that the evolutionary pathways which resulted in your brain allows you to think rationally? How do you know if you are even believing anything?

What scientific facts or data do you base your belief system on?

I base mine on the Bible. It is supported by science. Let me "elaborate" with an example from John Baumgardner. Let's say a small protein is made up of appoximately 200 amino acids. Experimental evidence suggest half of them need to be in the correct places for the protein to have any function. This gives a probability of 1 in 20 to the 100 power or 10 to 130 power. The number of atoms in the cosmos is estimated at 10 to 80 power. If you count for the interactions between those atoms and give a generous estimate to occur for 30 billion years, you get 10 to the 110 power as the maximum possibility of unique molecules ever to have existed in the universe!

How could a primitive form of life requiring about 1000 proteins ever have occured when even one of those proteins wouldn't have enough time to occur? This is an example where evolution needs to be thought differently or one's belief system.

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Ok gr,

Are you ready to play...

Let's make sure you keep up...

Here you go...

Let's run a scientific experiment. Go outside and pick up a small rock. The probability of that rock being on that spot on the earth by chance alone is roughly the area of the stone divided by the surface area of the earth, or about one chance in 10 to the 18th power (one followed by 18 zeros). If picking up the stone took one second, the probability of such an event occurring at this precise moment over the lifetime of the universe is now even smaller by another factor 10 to the 18th power! This simple event is so incredibly unlikely (essentially zero probability) that one wonders how it could be accomplished!

How can such an "unlikely" event occur? The problem is our initial false assumption of randomness. The rock and you arrived at that spot at that time by mechanistic processes. Probability theory fails when used improperly, as Baumgardner has done. Probability theory, like evolution theory, is valuable because it works under the appropriate conditions. Evolution theory explains the origin of species, but not the laws of gravity nor the origins of life. Probability theory works for random processes, but has no applicability to deterministic events.

The main flaw with this argument is that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how real proteins develop biologically. Life on earth didn't develop as the result of some supernatural experimenter banging together billions of atoms every femtosecond, looking to produce one particular protein. In real life, complex proteins evolve from simpler ones. Baumgardner purposely minimizes all of the components of evolution - reproduction of generation upon generation, occasional mutations, and most importantly, natural selection. Modern proteins don't have the complex structure they possess because anyone "required" them to have that structure - rather, they possess their complex structure because proteins have been evolving from simpler precursors for 3.5 BILLION YEARS. Baumgardner's analysis of the improbability of a specific protein is like shuffling a deck of cards, laying out all 52 cards in a row, and demanding that "nature" must be able to produce the same sequence of cards. This argument has nothing to do with biology - why, it doesn't even explain how you can occasionally win at poker!

So gr, do you still agree with John or maybe you think these arguments are based on a belief system. Do you really to get into this gr. Because I will fully as long and as hard you want to go.

Bring it on gr.....

gr 9 years, 4 months ago

"Bring it on gr....."

Why, because you're able to cut and paste?

You may want to give reference you your-word-for-word copying from Marshall Berman: One is: http://www.globalflood.org/letters/berman070597.html

"The problem is our initial false assumption of randomness"

Yep, an intelligence was involved in picking the rock. I suppose, since you are unable to think for yourself and can only cut and paste, you are unable to state why proteins are able to "build" from simplier ones and how evolution is a "deterministic" event. You also are probably unable to explain why Baumgardner's theory is like "demanding that "nature" must be able to produce the same sequence of cards". Wasn't what he said. Do you, through your copying, propose to change the theory of evolution of being random? Otherwise what drives it?

Since you brought up the idea of 3.5 billion years (in caps for some reason), maybe you could explain the current rate of the moon's drift from the earth and where it would have been when life started? and what impact that would have, if any?

And don't find something about it on an evolution site and copy and paste. (I think it was you made a similar request. Maybe so you would have the advantage?)

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

gr,

Thank-you for reminding me to indicate sources. I do apologize for not doing that but I will do so in the future. I guess I could say the same about you, that you are also copying your ideas or cutting and pasting from somewhere else. The internet is a powerful took. Think about it gr, all you are doing is accusing me of cutting and pasting and not answering the arguments at all. I will now start referring to your copying of ideas as well if you really want to start doing that.

(Oh by the way, I would really like to know how to paste a link on here because I just cannot figure it out. That is why I cut and paste. I am sorry that my computer skills are not that great but I would love to be able to just paste links as well. Maybe you can tell me how. I can copy the link but I can't figure out how to make it active).

Back to copying ideas though gr, you are of course doing the same but are you reading anything else besides things that only support your idea of what is right. Let's look back at the arguments which actually come from several different authors and not just Berman. Do you understand that the process of evolution is not random? Do you understand what natural selection is and what it means. Do you understand that randomness plays a small part in evolution? I do not think you do. In fact, I would go as far as to say that you could not explain how evolution works since you seem to think that randomness is the central theme to evolution. It is not. If you want to really understand this then I suggest you broaden your reading list. It is obvious that you missed the entire argument that was given on Baumgardener. He is not applying probability theory. He has used it incorrectly. Baumgerdener is talking about origins of life, he isn't even talking about the process of evolution or the origin of species.
To be continued.....

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

You can argue origins of life until you are blue in the face but you are essentially saying nothing about evolution or speciation. You do understand that the process of simpler proteins evolving to more complex ones hence "being built" happens in the world right now. I don't have to go back 3.5 billions to prove to you that it happened because it happens right now in front of your eyes. Of course that is probably not what you were thinking when you made the statement so I have a feeling I will be hearing more about what you meant to say. But if you are just talking about going from a simpler protein to a more complex protein, then we could actually observe that "deterministic event" through natural selection. The statement that "The main flaw with this argument is that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how real proteins develop biologically" is a fact gr and we don't have to go back 3.5 billions years to show that. So Baumgarderner has totally ignored this is his so called "proof". You will also notice that John G did not submit that "proof" to any peer review process or publish it anywhere from a scientific standpoint.
And gr (sigh) your little moon argument which presumambly comes from Hovind (might want to assign credit here since it technically was not YOUR idea) which supposedly shows the earth could not have been 3.5 billion years old has been dealt with and dismissed scientifically. I could direct you to several places but maybe you could tell me how to make those links. I noticed that you have not said exactly what you understand about this argument but essentially it says that "the moon is moving away at a rate of 6 inches a year so that would mean that less than a million years it would have been inside the Roche Limit (I assuming you uunderstand what this is) and life on earth could not have possibly existed. At first look, as many (too countless to mention) have pointed out that Dr. Hovind made an error in his calculation in that if the moon was receding at 6 inches a year then1 million years ago it would be 6 million inches away which if you understand how to do mathematics, is about 95 feet. Well gr the moon is 240,000 miles away and its actual orbit brings it closer to earth than 95 feet. So hey we are still here, ah 95 feet must not make much of a difference. Oh so lets say for the sake of argument when we would we actually reach the Roche limit at 6 inches a year. That estimate would be at 1 or 2 BILLION years (my cap for dramatic effect).

Kodiac 9 years, 4 months ago

Oh wait there is even more to this little exercise which have to do with tides. These statements are from Hansen, Finch, and Brush:

"The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).

(Brush, 1983, p.78)

Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, no problem here.

So gr what is next to talk about.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

My, my, my, Kodiac. You sure told me! You do have the art of argument. It does appear I may have bit off more than I can chew. ;-)

Maybe I should have maintained my premise that there is no point of talking to those who suggest the space shuttle is becoming less complex. However, there are a few points of your response worthy of pointing out.

I'm not sure if you were using another "bait and switch" technique or if it was just a defensive act. Most of my thoughts, most of my ideas, are copied from someone else on down to 1+1=2. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. But, I would not copy three paragraphs word for word with no indication they were not my own words.

As far as not answering arguments, I'm not really sure which argument you were referring to, but if you look at the latest one you brought up, I did answer it by asking if you were in agreement with Berman in redefining evolution. You see, Wendt, you, and the ones you quoted seem to have a different idea of what is meant by "evolution" than many others. That's why I've insisted on people defining what they mean by it. Unfortunately, people are unwilling to define it and say it's basic 7th grade science. As if 7th graders fully pay attention and are in full understanding of what they are taught. If the meaning of evolution is not defined, we would have each person talking on completely different meanings when there may be agreement, but the failure to define gets in the way. But, at least from what I've read and been taught in public schools, evolution is generally meant to be a random process. From your comments, I must be mistaken.

Rather than deride Baumgardner about his ability to apply probability, which I do believe he applied rules of probability correctly, wouldn't it have been much easier to just say he made a false assumption? A false assumption that life (or proteins or species) evolve by random processes? His main point was life couldn't evolve by randomness. Your quote agrees with it and I'm in agreement with it.

As far as my "little moon argument" goes, I had read about it from another other than Hovind. But, nonrelevant. It looks like someone is pulling my leg, but I'm not smart enough to determine who it is. You made me get my calculator out this time! 240,000 miles X 5,280ft/mile = 1,267,200,000 feet. Divide that by .5 feet gives 2,534,400,000 divisions of 6 inches. Looks like 2.5 billion units. Not sure what that really means. But, as you pointed out by a number of ways, none of this is relevant. One is the configuration of the oceans/continents affecting the tides, which seems reasonable to me. We both would be in agreement that the current configuration is different than in the remote past.

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

You are close to pasting links properly. LJW software will interpret the posts, (I guess so you can't use fancy markup), and then will put any links in place at the time posting. The key is including the http:// in front of any link. That clues their software. Of course, you could have just pasted the link and if it wasn't active, let the reader paste it in their browser.

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

gr,

Thanks for the info on the links.

Actually the above calculation you made was for the moon to be in the same place as the earth which is irrelevent of course but just wanted to point out to you that the estimate of 1 to 2 billion years was for the Roche Limit not for where the moon and earth would be in the same place.

Also on the Baumgardner argument he not only is making a false assumption, he is not even comparing the same concepts e.g origin of life vs origin of species. There is also a difference in being able to calculate a probability and applying probability theory. Anyone can calculate a probability for anything.

As far as a definition for evolution, I know this will infuriate you but, the reason why Wendt says that you need to read a basic 7th grade text is because your statements indicate that you obviously have not done your homework. Instead I am going to ask you to do something. Go find a scientific reference (and I mean peer reviewed scientific text not from religious groups) that says that the process of evolution is a random process. If you want to be able to talk intelligently about evolution gr, you have to understand what it is that you are talking about. I guarantee you that by saying evolution is a random process, you clue everyone in on how little you know about evolution and who you listen to or what basis you are coming from. I will say it again gr, evolution is not a random process. You can take that to the bank.....

Sorry I am out of time...

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Hey gr,

I found some definitions for you. I also have found that many defintions of evolution including dictionaries contains errors or are just plain wrong. I actually have a evolutionary biology text book by Douglas Futuyma who wrote the following definition:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Hope that helps. You will notice of course that none of them say anything about randomness or make any religious exclusions.

Your buddy Kodiac

gr 9 years, 3 months ago

Thanks. I hadn't made much progress, yet.

Hmm. So, how are those definitions different from "population genetics"? Especially, "change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next".

Kodiac 9 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I think what you are trying to ask for in terms of a "definition" for evolution is a fairly complex answer. The definition from Curtis and Barnes I gave above is a fairly general and simple definition but probably would be considered to be only a partial defintion or even inadequete. So your question on population genetics may expose that simplicity and probably requires a more detailed answer. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of small genetic changes within a population over a few generations. Some biologists like to call that microevolution as opposed to macroevolution or speciation. The definition from Futuyma would probably be considered to be a more a complete defintion since it includes "micro" and "macro" evolution. I am not sure Futuyma or even many biologists would agree with using the terms micro and macro though so understand that those are my own thoughts which would not be considered to be based on any expert opinions.

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

"Baumgardner purposely minimizes all of the components of evolution - reproduction of generation upon generation, occasional mutations, and most importantly, natural selection."

Kodiac,

Just thinking about the components of evolution. Reproduction, I think, is apparent.

Natural Selection

n. The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

noun: a natural process that results in the survival of individuals or groups best adjusted to the conditions under which they live and that is equally important for the perpetuation of desirable genetic qualities and for the elimination of undesirable ones as these are produced by recombination or mutation of genes

Selection n. 1. 1. The act or an instance of selecting or the fact of having been selected. 2. One that is selected. 2. A carefully chosen or representative collection of people or things. See Synonyms at choice. 3. A literary or musical text chosen for reading or performance. 4. Biology. A natural or artificial process that favors or induces survival and perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die or fail to produce offspring.


So, based on the definition of natural selection, it works on an existing population and its attributes. The whole meaning of selection is ...well... selection. If I have a jar of M&M's and select out all but the green ones, I would have exerted an "environmental selection pressure". Only the green ones would be left. If you take this further and that somehow they could reproduce and were homozygous, they would only produce green ones. My selection didn't make them green - they were already green. Selection works with what already exists. Further selection will not make them any other colors.

The only stated component left of "all of the components of evolution" would be "occasional mutations". One may suggest "jumping genes" and what not, but all those things work with existing information. Mutations are the only thing left to provide "new" information. So, that would be what needs to be shown evidence for. Not that mutations happen, but that mutations result in new information. Things such as defective blood cells, although do give the advantage of avoiding disease, do not help transport oxygen better.

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

Take "Darwin's finches". Supposedly, and I see no reason to disagree with it, one pair of finches got isolated on the island. The environment and competition caused selection pressure so the result was different beaks and forms. Although still finches, they were quite a bit morphologically different. If one has the presupposition that the original finches to the island had all the attributes within them, a mongrel or Heinz57 if you will, it is very easy to see how selection pressure could result in changes fairly quickly. And, once each population's characteristics have segregated, further selection at a new island would not result in similar segregations. The information has been selected out.

However, with the other presupposition that mutation is the mechanism, one would have to also think you could take any of those finches to a new island and achieve similar results. I don't think the science supports that. Consider the qualifier of "occasional".

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Gr,

You need to give credit for other people's work. The problem with your examples is that natural selection and mutations are not the only two mechanisms at work here and your examples don't reflect reality. You are attemting to talk about genetic constaints but I have a feeling that you are merely regurgitating what someone else has said because it is obvious that you fail to understand the complexity of evolution and the processes involved. Take for example your little M&M argument. You automatically have equated being green with homozygotes. This is a gross oversimplification to a comparison of Darwin's finches or even dogs. You might want to study genetic make-up, genetic drift ietc., n correlation with species survival. Mutation is not the only mechanism present here. You might want to review all of the processes involved with evolution. You have not even began to scratch the surface Gr.

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

Actually, the M&M was my idea unless I've forgotten it from somewhere. Also, notice I said "If" they were homozygous. I understand they wouldn't have to be. But, that is not the point. The point being, no new information is introduced by selection.

The quote I made, "all of the components of evolution" came from your quote. Thought you'd be familiar with it. I guess you suggest he was wrong in saying "all"? And you're right, I don't know everything about evolution. In fact I don't even have a working knowledge of what "evolution" is. Seems no one can specify it. It must be a very complex topic and be a very complex mechanism.

I don't know what you mean by "genetic make-up", but genetic drift only makes use of existing information. Now, maybe you're implying that it could make use of a mutation, but that's back to "mutation".

Educate us ignorant creationists. If there is something other than mutations to introduce new information, what is it? And if it's only mutations, what are they? Because, my public school teachers must have failed me - from your viewpoint.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Gr,

I am not sure why you are trying to get me to come up with all of this information for you. I have taken a few classes in evolution and have read alot on the subject but by no means would I be considered to be an expert in this area. You would get a much better education if you were to direct your questions at someone such as Leornard K or a professor in evolution at KU.

I find it curious that you flit back and forth between being a person who does not have an agenda, just wanting to learn more and a person who clearly has religious motivations to reject evolution and will try to find holes.

I have seen the M&M example given in science classrooms for natural selection before but not presented the way you are trying to use it. So it makes me think that you have copied the idea from someone else because it is fairly common analogy used in evolution. If you don't believe me google M&Ms and evolution and you will see what I mean.

Below are some information I found that might answer some of your questions. These are not my ideas of course and come from the internet but these certainly are things you could look at Gr if you really wanted to find it. I guess all I see on your part is a lack of willingness to actually look at information regarding evolution since you seem to need me to help point out information already out there to answer your questions.

"In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.

Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides.

Mutation is the only natural process that adds variation to populations. Selection and genetic drift remove variation. If mutations did not create new variation, there would now be little or no variation to select from. In particular, reducing populations to a single pair of individuals, as Noah's Flood requires, would have removed very nearly all variation from the world's wildlife in one stroke.

It is true that much microevolution selects from preexisting variation. In animals, that kind of microevolution occurs much faster than waiting for certain mutations to occur, so we often see artificial selection programs stall when they have selected among all the variation that was there to begin with. However, if the selection is maintained, change should continue, albeit at a much slower rate. "

From the website http://www.talkorigins.com

TinManKansas 9 years, 2 months ago

In Search of a Mermaid

This past Sunday, the media ran uncritically an article about a small Ethiopian skull found in two pieces. They said it could be the missing link between man and animals. Perhaps. Of course, there is no DNA evidence or other confirmation by rigorous scientific method. We have been on this side trip before. Remember that high school science book that proudly displayed the four cartoon drawings, starting with the chimp, including the Neanderthal, and ending with modern man proudly marching to triumph? It was nonsense or worse. Even evolutionists are now critical of that cartoon. As one science writer, Steve Olson, points out in his book Mapping Human History, "in the illustrated parade of ancestors that accompanies so many books and articles on human evolution:a modern human, almost always male, leads the parade, marching resolutely toward the edge of the page. He is followed by something resembling a caveman, then a bipedal ape, and finally a shambling, foolish looking chimpanzee. The picture seems to suggest that we are the end result of preordained process, the inevitable goal of evolution. It reinforces our belief that we are at the apex of a great pyramid of life, with all other living and extinct organisms arrayed below us. But this picture of human evolution is wrong-or at least so incomplete as to be seriously misleading." You see, if a Neanderthal was your ancestor, it would show up in your DNA, and it does not. Modern geneticists tell us that there was never any interbreeding between man and the Neanderthal. Curiously, even though man and the Neanderthal lived during the same time period, there is also no indication of war between the two. I find that strange.

The creationist is flat wrong on one point. Referring to the lack of evidence of gradual evolution, creationists claim there is no historical record of the so-called "missing links" between man and animal. The truth is that history has many fine examples of "missing links," but you have to look to mythology, not science, to find them. Centaurs, according to Greek mythology, had the head and arms of a man but the legs and lower half of a horse. Ancient myths often tell of beings made out of several creatures joined together in a single one: a human head on a lion body makes a sphinx, and on that of a fish a mermaid, the satyrs (men with goat's legs), the Minotaur (half man and half bull), the list goes on and on. The Beatles might be a modern example, since they sang, "I am the walrus." I understand Harry Porter knows of many such creatures. Of course, we don't want to forget the now famous Mr. Tumnus of Narnia fame.

So we find lots of such "missing links," just none in science. But who knows what they might find, as the search for a "missing link" continues? Actually, just between you and me, I have always had a soft spot in my heart for mermaids. I do hope they find one.

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

While I'm not sure you could say I "have an agenda", it's true I have religious "motivations to reject evolution". It's also true I want to learn more. You see, I have faith in believing the Bible is true. There are prophecies within the Bible that have come true, but still, believing in the Bible is a faith statement. Evolutionists, whatever that may entail, have motivations to reject creation because they reject the Bible. Now, you've said you believe in God and evolution, but that seems strange because without death, there is no evolution (if I understand that part of evolution correctly). Then, a question comes to mind, why was there death before sin? Why did death exist?

You are right, there does seem to be lots of examples involving M&M's. Actually, I was going to use marbles, but thought more people could relate to M&M's. Searching for marbles and evolution also come up with lots of hits. So, maybe I've heard of a similar example using marbles, or maybe any number of items. I don't recall. But, the concept is out there, and I only gain concepts from others. I want to learn, you know?

It's one thing for evolutionists to say it's based upon facts, but if none is ever offered, I can only conclude negatively. But, if they present them, then I may need to reconsider my views of evolutionists. Don't you think understanding where someone is coming from even if you don't agree with them is good and conducive towards conversation rather than just having an opposing view without knowing why?

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html, "Mutation is the only natural process that adds variation to populations. Selection and genetic drift remove variation." Kind of what I said. Now, I see you had quoted it. Mutation is IT. Now, only need to see it happen.

In regard to antibiotics and pesticides, ever hear of the term, "hormone-like". Of course the quote qualifies some as being unlike anything in nature. But, you must surely understand that proof of such statement could be difficult. And, without further details on their experiments, it's hard to say what the experiment was. Searching on Lederberg found some results. Here's one from Berkeley, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml I don't know much about Berkeley and the site seems a little tacky and shallow, but the site says it was "created by University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant no. 51003439)" This experiment was done in 1952. The same? If so, kind of opposite conclusions than TalkOrigins. Another point from the site was mutations were random, versus directed as I believe you were saying evolution was. "Scientists generally think that the first explanation is the right one [resistance was always there] and that directed mutations, the second possible explanation, is not correct."

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

Then there's implied evidence. Think of the crop breeders. (And the following thought is my conclusion from creation sites even though I've read about it in journals and newspapers). Scientists don't go around mutating plants to make gains in disease resistance, yield, etc. They try to breed in existing genes from wild plants, and now are also using genetic engineering to insert existing genes into crop plants. That is quite expensive compared to causing random mutations to make a gain. Even with existing genes, they have to do the process thousands of times before realizing a single gain. If mutation worked, wouldn't that be easier and just as rewarding?

I found many examples of resistant organisms which have nothing to do with new information. It is usually loss of information which prevents the pesticide, antibiotic, or organism from attacking it. In bacteria, there are examples of bacteria crossbreeding with others to transfer existing resistance. And, think how crop breeders use certain bacteria to insert genes from one plant species into another. I also found mention of bacteria being thawed from sources before antibiotics were developed, which were resistant to them. http://www.bmb.psu.edu/courses/micro106/insys/resist.htm (bottom of first paragraph) Better find something more credible than TalkOrgins.

So, when evolutionists say the "facts" support evolution (whatever that may be), but then I read, from a supposedly reputable university, that scientists say resistance was already there, and mutations are random, what do you think makes more sense in believing? You tell me to find out on my own, and "Evolution 101" sounds like the type of material you and Wendt are trying to refer me to. But, it's not what you guys are telling me. True, they do talk about hypothetical means of evolution, but far from it being "facts". The more I find out, the less support of these "facts" evolutionists speak of. In fact, just the opposite.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Gr,

I had to stop reading your ramblings. You seem to take everything and twist it around until you not making any sense anymore.

Randomness is a concept you need to sit down and think about Gr. Mutations can be random but what does that have to do with evolution being directional. Your statement of "Another point from the site was mutations were random, versus directed as I believe you were saying evolution was. " makes absolutely no sense at all. These are two separate and related concepts. For some reason you have equated evolution with mutations which the reason why you are trying to say that evolution has to be random? But again explain to us how natural selection is random? How about genetic drift. All of these concepts make up the concept of evolution. Yet you sit there and insist that since mutation is random, then evolution has to be random. I cannot understand why you have trouble understanding that randomness actually plays a small part in evolution and that the overall process is directional. The experiement by Lederberg is not the opposite conclusion of Talk Origins. Again you are talking about mutations versus evolution. Are you trying to be disingenius or stupid? I don't know which.

The crop breeder paragraph is simply idiotic. You have called yourself an ignorant creationist and that paragraph really demonstrates that better than anything I could say or show as proof.

Or how about "I found many examples of resistant organisms which have nothing to do with new information. It is usually loss of information which prevents the pesticide, antibiotic, or organism from attacking it" so you want to give us some hard numbers there Gr. So did you not find bacteria that make new enzymes that degrade antibiotics. What is exactly is your point here? Resistance was already there? What does that mean? Where did that come from? Are these published any scientific journal anywhere Gr. No. Huh. Wonder why? Oh wait I know it is the evolution conspiricy committee. Give me a freaking break Gr.

Again I will reiterate Gr, you really need to go and take some evolution courses at KU or talk to people who are much more knowledgeable than I am on this subject. If you are really serious about learning Gr, then you should do this, even if you disagree from a religious viewpoint.

There is not much more I can say here Gr. This will be my last post to you Gr. Good luck with being ignorant for the rest of your life.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Here you go Gr references for Mutation Breeding. Happy reading!

AMANO, E. 1981. Genetic and biochemical characterization of waxy mutants in cereals. Environmental Health Perspectives 37, 35-41.

AMANO, E: 1985. Genetic fine structure of induced mutant gene in cereals. Gamma Field Symposia No.24. Inst. of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp.81-9

ANONYMOUS 1991. Plant Mutation Breeding for Crop Improvement. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Vienna 1990. 2 volumes. IAEA, Vienna..

ANONYMOUS 1995. Induced Mutations and Molecular Techniques for Crop Improvement. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Vienna 1995. IAEA, Vienna.

BHATTACHARYYA, M., MARTIN, C. and SMITH, A. 1993. The importance of starch biosynthesis in the wrinkled shape character of peas studied by Mendel. Plant Molecular Biology 22, 525-531.

BROERTJES, C. and VAN HARTEN, A.M. 1988. Applied Mutation Breeding for Vegetatively Propagated Crops. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

CARROLL, B.J., McNEILL, D.L. and GRESSHOFF, P.M. 1985. Isolation and properties of soybean (Glycine max (L.)Merr.) mutants that nodulate in presence of high nitrate concentrations. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA 82, 4162-4166.

CHALEFF, R.S. 1983. Isolation of agronomically useful mutants from plant cell cultures. Science 214, 676-682.

CLARK, S.E. 1997. Organ formation at the vegetative shoot meristem. The Plant Cell 9, 1067-1076.

CULLIS, C.A. 1986. Phenotypic consequences of environmentally induced changes in plant DNA. Trends in Genetics 2, 307-309.

D'AMATO, F. 1986. Spontaneous mutations and somaclonal variation. In: Nuclear Techniques and In Vitro Culture for Plant Improvement. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Vienna 1985. IAEA, Vienna. pp.3-10.

DASKALOV, S. and MICHAILOV, L. 1988. A new method for hybrid seed production based on cytoplasmic male sterility combined with a lethal gene and a female sterile pollenizer in Capsicum annuum L. Theor.Appl.Genet. 76, 530.

DOEBLEY, J., STEC, A. and HUBBARD, L. 1997. The evolution of apical dominance in maize. Nature 386, 485-488.

to be continued

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Continued from above:

DONINI, B., KAWAI, T. and MICKE, A. 1984. Spectrum of mutant characters utilized in developing improved cultivars. In: Selection in Mutation Breeding. IAEA, Vienna. pp.7-31.

DYCK, P.L. 1982. Genetic inhibition of expression of resistance gene Lr23 in wheat to Puccinia recondita. Can.J.Plant Sci. 62, 219-220.

EDWARDS, J.W. and CORUZZI, G.M. 1990. Cell-specific gene expression in plants. Annu.Rev.Genet. 24, 275-303.

EVANS, D.A. and SHARP, W.R. 1983. Single gene mutations in tomato plants regenerated from tissue culture. Science 221, 949-951.

GALLIE, D.R. 1993. Posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression in plants. Annu.Rev.Plant Physiol.Plant Mol.Biol. 44, 77-105.

GALLIE, D.R. and BAILEY-SERRES, J. 1997. Eyes off transcription! The wonderful world of post-transcriptional regulation. The Plant Cell 9, 667-673.

GAUL, H., GRUNEWALDT, J. and HESEMANN, C.U. 1968. Variation of character expression of barley mutants in a changed genetic background. In: Mutations in Plant Breeding II. IAEA, Vienna. pp. 77-95.

GÃ-BEL, E., BROWN, P.T.H. and LÃ-RZ, H. 1986. In vitro culture of Zea mays L. and analyses of regenerated plants. In: Nuclear Techniques and In Vitro Cultures for Plant Improvement. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Vienna 1985. IAEA, Vienna. pp. 21-27.

GOODRICH, J., PUANGSOMLEE, P. MARTIN, M., LONG, D., MEYEROWITZ, E.M. and COUPLAND, G. 1997. A polycomb-group gene regulates homeotic gene expression in Arabidopsis. Nature 386, 44-51.

GOTTSCHALK, W. 1971. Die Bedeutung der Genmutationen für die Evolution der Pflanzen. Gustav Fischer Stuttgart.

GOTTSCHALK, W. and MÃLLER, H.P. (ed.) 1983. Seed Proteins. Biochemistry, Genetics, Nutritive Value. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr.W.Junk Publ. The Hague.

GOTTSCHALK, W. and WOLFF, G. 1983. Induced Mutations in Plant Breeding. Monographs on Theoretical and Applied Genetics No.7. Springer, Berlin.

GREEN, A.G. and MARSHALL, D.R. 1984. Isolation of induced mutants in linseed (Linum usitatissimum) having reduced linolenic acid content. Euphytica 33, 321-328.

GUSTAFSSON, A. and LUNDQUIST, U. 1976. Controlled environment and short day tolerance in barley mutants. In: Induced Mutations in Cross Breeding. IAEA, Vienna. pp.49-52.

HABBEN, J.E. and LARKINS, B.A. 1995. Improving protein quality of seeds. In: Seed Development and Germination. J.KIGEL and G.GALILI (ed.). Marcel Dekker Inc., New York. pp.791-810.

HALL, B.G. 1990. Spontaneous point mutations that occur more often when advantageous than when neutral. Genetics 126, 5-16.

HEINZ, D.J. and MEE, G.W.P. 1969. Plant differentation from callus tissue of Saccharum species. Crop Sci. 6, 346-348.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

IIDA, S., AMANO, E. and NISHIO, T. 1993. A rice (Oryza sativa L.) mutant having a low content of glutelin and a high content of prolamine. Theor.Appl.Genet. 87, 374-378.

JACOBSEN, E. and FEENSTRA, W.J. 1984. A new pea mutant with efficient nodulation in the presence of nitrate. Plant Sci.Lett. 33, 337-344.

JAYARAM, Ch. and REDDY, A.R. 1990. An En (Spm)-system insertion partly reduces the color-suppressing potency of the dominant C-! allele in maize. Theor.Appl.Genet. 80, 699-704.

JÃ-RGENSEN, J.H. 1988. Genetic analysis of barley mutants with modifications of powdery mildew resistance gene Ml-a12. Genome 30, 129-132.

JÃ-RGENSEN, J.H. 1992. Discovery, characterisation and exploitation of ml-o powdery mildew resistance in barley. In: Breeding for Disease Resistance. R.JOHNSON and G.J.ELLIS (ed.). Euphytica 63, 141-152.

JÃ-RGENSEN, J.H. 1996. Effect of three suppressors on the expression of powdery mildew resistance genes in barley. Genome 39, 492-498.

KENRICK, P. and KRANE, P.R. 1997. The origin and early evolution of plants on land. Nature 389, 33-39.

KERBER, E.R. and GREEN, G.J. 1980.Suppression of stem rust resistance in the hexaploid wheat cv. Canthatch by chromosome 7DL. Can.J.Bot. 58, 1347-1350.

KIYOSAWA, S. and NOMURA, K. 1988. Disease resistance in crop plants and mutation breeding. Gamma Field Symposia No.27. Inst. of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp.1-32.

KOINANGE, E.M.K., SINGH, S.P. and GEPTS, P. 1996. Genetic control of the domestication syndrome in common bean. Crop Sci. 36, 1037-1045.

KONZAK, C.F. 1984. Role of induced mutations. In: Crop Breeding. A contemporary basis. Chapter 9. P.B.VOSE and S.G.BLIXT (ed.). Pergamon Press, 0xford. pp.216-292.

KURATA, N., MOORE, G., NAGAMURA, Y., FOOTE, T., YANO, M., MINOBE, Y. and GALE, M. 1994. Conservation of genome structure between rice and wheat. Biotechnology 12, 276-278.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

LARKIN, P.J. and SCOWCROFT, W.R. 1981. Somaclonal variation - a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor.Appl.Genet. 60, 197-214.

MALUSZYNSKI, M., FUGLEWICZ, A., SZAREJKO, I. and MICKE, A. 1989. Barley mutant heterosis. In: Current Options for Cereal Improvement: Doubled Haploids, Mutants and Heterosis. Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp.129-146.

MALUSZYNSKI, M., MICKE, A. and DONINI, B. 1986. Genes for semidwarfism in rice induced by mutagenesis. In: Rice Genetics. IRRI, Manila. pp.729-737.

MALUSZYNSKI, M., MICKE, A., SIGURBJÃ-RNSSON, B., SZAREJKO, I. and FUGLEWICZ, A. 1987. The use of mutants for breeding and for hybrid barley. In: Barley Genetics V. Proc.5th Int.Barley Genetics Symposium, Okayama (Japan) 1986. pp.969-977.

MALUSZYNSKI, M. ,VAN ZANTEN, L. ASHRI, A., BRUNNER, H., AHLOOWALIA, B. ZAPATA, F.J. and WECK, E. 1995. Mutation techniques in plant breeding. In: Induced Mutations and Molecular Techniques for Crop Improvement. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Vienna 1995. IAEA, Vienna. pp.489-504

MATZKE, M. and MATZKE, A.J.M. 1993. Genomic imprinting in plants: Parental effects and trans-inactivation phenomena. Annu.Rev.Plant Physiol.Plant Mol.Biol. 44, 53.76.

MICKE, A. 1958. Mutationszüchtung beim weissen Steinklee (Melilotus albus) mit Hilfe von Rntgenstrahlen. Z.Pflanzenz. 39, 415-437.

MICKE, A. 1962a. Eine bitterstoffreie Mutante bei Melilotus albus nach Bestrahlung von Samen mit thermischen Neutronen. Die Naturwissenschaften 49, 332.

MICKE, A. 1962b. Genetische Untersuchungen beim weissen Steinklee (Melilotus albus). I. Ãber die Vererbung der Fähigkeit zur Bildung von Cumarinsäureglykosid. Z.Pflanzenz. 48, 1-13.

MICKE, A. 1968. Utilization of induced mutants as hybrids. In: EUCARPIA. Proc. 5th Congress, Milano 1968. pp.262-268.

MICKE, A. 1969. Improvement of low yielding sweet clover mutants by heterosis breeding. In: Induced Mutations in Plants. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Pullmann (USA) 1969. IAEA, Vienna. pp.541-550.

MICKE, A. 1976. Hybrid vigour in mutant crosses: Prospects and problems of exploitation studied with mutants of sweet clover. In: Induced Mutations in Cross Breeding. IAEA, Vienna. pp.199-218.

MICKE, A. 1979. Use of mutation induction to alter the ontogenetic pattern of crop plants. Gamma Field Symposia No.18. Inst. of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp.1-23.

MICKE, A. 1988. Genetic improvement of grain legumes using induced mutations. In: Improvement of Grain Legume Production using Induced Mutations. Proc. FAO/IAEA Workshop, Pullman (USA) 1986. IAEA, Vienna. pp.1-51.

MICKE, A. 1991. Induced mutations for crop improvement. Gamma Field Symposia No.30. Inst. of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp.1-21.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

MICKE, A. 1992. 50 years induced mutations for improving disease resistance of crop plants. Mutation Breeding Newsletter No.39, pp. 2-4. IAEA, Vienna.

MICKE, A. 1996. 70 years induced mutations - to be reconsidered? Mutation Breeding Newsletter No.42, pp. 22-25. IAEA, Vienna.

MICKE, A., DONINI, B. and MALUSZYNSKI, M. 1980. Induced mutations for crop improvement. Mutation Breeding Review No.7. IAEA, Vienna.

MICKE, A., MALUSZYNSKI, M. and DONINI, B. 1985. Plant cultivars derived from mutation induction or the use of induced mutants in cross breeding. Mutation Breeding Review No.3. IAEA, Vienna.

MICKE, A. and SWIECICKI, W.K. 1988. Induced mutations in lupins. In: Proc.5th Int.Lupin Conference Poznan (Poland) 1988. pp.110-127.

MIESCHER, F. 1871. Ãber die chemische Zusammensetzung der Eiterzellen. Hoppe-Seyler's Med.chem.Unters. 4, 441-460.

MOORE, G., DEVOS, K.M., WANG, Z. and GALE, M.D. 1995. Grasses, line up and form a circle. Current Biology 5, 737-739.

MULLER, H.J. 1927. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 66, 84-87.

MULLER, H.J. 1928. The problem of genic modification. In: Proc. 5th Int.Congress of Genetics, Berlin. pp.234-260.

NOVAK, F.J. 1991. Mutation breeding by using tissue culture techniques. Gamma Field Symposia No.30. Inst. of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp.23-32.

NOVAK, F.J., DASKALOV, S., BRUNNER, H., NESTICKY, M. AFZA, R. DOLEZELOVA, M., LUCRETTI, S., HERICHOVA, A. and HERMELIN, T. 1988. Somatic embryogenesis in maize and comparison of genetic variability induced by gamma radiation and tissue culture techniques. Plant Breeding 101, 66-79.

OHNO, S. 1970. Evolution by Gene Duplication. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

OONO, K. 1978. Test tube breeding of rice by tissue culture. Trop.Agr.Res.Series 11, 109-123.

OONO, K. 1985. Putative homozygous mutations in regenerated plants of rice. Mol.Gen.Genet. 198, 377-384.

OONO, K., OKUNO, K. and KAWAI, T. 1984. High frequency of somaclonal mutations in callus culture of rice. Gamma Field Symposia No.23. Inst.of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp. 71-94.

PARK, S.J. and BUTTERY; B.R. 1989. Inheritance of nitrate-tolerant supernodulation in EMS induced mutants of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J.of Heredity 80, 486-488.

PHILLIPS, R.L., KAEPPLER, S.M. and OLHOFT, P. 1994. Genetic instability of plant tissue cultures; Breakdown of normal controls. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA 91, 5222-5226.

PREM DAS, O. and MESSING, J. 1994. Variegated phenotype and developmental methylation changes of a maize allele originating from epimutation. Genetics 136, 1121-1141.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

RASMUSSON, D.C. and PHILLIPS, R.L. 1997. Plant breeding progress and genetic diversity from de novo variation and elevated epistasis. Crop Science 37, 303-310.

RAY, A. 1997. Three's company: Regulatory cross-talk during seed development. The Plant Cell 9, 665-667.

REDEI, G.P. 1969. Gene function and phenotypic repair. In: Induced Mutations in Plants. Proc. FOA/IAEA Symposium, Pullmann (USA) 1969. pp. 51-60.

RÃ-BBELEN, G. 1982. Status and aspects of rapeseed breeding. In: Improvement of Oil-Seeds and Industrial Crops by Induced Mutations. IAEA, Vienna. pp.103-117.

RÃ-BBELEN, G. 1990. Mutation breeding for quality improvement - A case study for oilseed crops. Mutation Breeding Review No.6. IAEA, Vienna. pp.1-44.

RÃ-MER, F.W. and MICKE, A. 1974. Combining ability and heterosis of radiation-induced mutants of Melilotus albus DES. In: Polyploidy and Induced Mutations in Plant Breeding. Proc. FAO/IAEA/EUCARPIA Meeting, Bari (Italy) 1972. IAEA, Vienna. pp.275-276.

SCHEIBE, A. and MICKE, A. 1967. Experimentally induced mutations in leguminous forage plants and their agronomic value. In: Induced Mutations and their Utilization. Proc. Erwin-Baur-Gedächtnisvorlesungen IV, Gatersleben 1966. Akademie-Verlag Berlin. pp. 231-236.

SCHÃ-N, W.J. 1966. Ãber die stereospezifische Ã-Glucosidase in bitterstoff-freien Mutanten bei Melilotus albus. Angew.Bot. 40, 38-54.

SCHWOCHAU, M.E. and HADWIGER, L.A. 1996. Gene activations resulting from a preferential reaction of certain chemical mutagens with regulatory sites of native DNA. In: Induced Mutations in Plants. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium Pullman, Wash., (USA) 1969. IAEA, Vienna. pp.83-92.

SHUBIN, N., TABIN, C. and CARROLL, S. 1997. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388, 639-648.

SKIRVIN, R.M. 1978. Natural and induced variation from tissue culture. Euphytica 27, 241-266.

STADLER, L.J. 1930. Some genetic effects of X-rays in plants. J.Heredity 21, 3-19.

STADLER, L.J. 1932. On the genetic nature of induced mutations in plants. In: Proc. Sixth Int.Congress of Genetics, Ithaca N.Y. Brooklyn Botanic Garden, New York. Vol. 1, pp. 274-294.

STADLER, L.J. and ROMAN, H. 1948. The effects of X-rays upon mutation of the A gene in maize. Genetics 33, 273-303.

STANBRIDGE, E.J. 1990. Human tumor suppressor genes. Annu.Rev.Genet. 24, 615-657

SUKEKIYO, Y. and KIMURA, Y. 1991. Somaclonal variation in protoplast-derived rice plants. Gamma Field Symposia No.30. Inst. of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp.43-58.

SVOBODA, J. 1994. Cancer genes and the concept of the gene. Folia Mendeliana 28/29, 9-17.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

TAKAGI, Y., MAMUN HOSSAIN, A.B.M., YANAGITA, T. and KUSARA, S. 1989. High linolenic acid mutant in soybean induced by x-ray irradiation. Japan.J.Breed. 39, 403-409.

TULEEN, N.A., CALDECOTT, R.S., SNYDER, L.A. and HIATT, V.S. 1966. The genetic nature of phenotypic reversions induced in Hordeum with ionizing radiations and chemical mutagens. In: Mutations in Plant Breeding. IAEA, Vienna. pp. 45-48.

VON WETTSTEIN, D. 1995. Breeding of value added barley by mutation and protein engineering. In: Induced Mutations and Molecular Techniques for Crop Improvement. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Vienna 1995. IAEA, Vienna. pp.67-76.

WILLIAMS, N.D., MILLER, J.D. and KLINDWORTH, D.L. 1992. Induced mutations of a genetic suppressor of resistance to wheat stem rust. Crop Sci. 32, 612-618.

WORLAND, A.J. and LAW, C.N. 1991. Improving disease resistance in wheat by inactivating genes promoting disease susceptibility. Mutation Breeding Newsletter No.39, pp. 2-5. IAEA, Vienna.

YAMAGATA, H. 1981. Fruits and perspectives of mutation breeding. Gamma Field Symposia No.20. Inst. of Radiation Breeding, NIAR, MAFF, Japan. pp.11-40.

YATOU, O. and AMANO, E. 1991. DNA structure of mutant genes in the waxy locus in rice. In: Plant Mutation Breeding for Crop Improvement. Proc. FAO/IAEA Symposium, Vienna 1990. Vol. 2. IAEA, Vienna. pp.385-389.

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

Kodiac, you seem frustrated. I thought I was following simple lines here, but somehow we must have got sidetracked onto different wavelengths.

"...makes absolutely no sense at all. These are two separate and related concepts. "
Well, I thought you had made the statement, and I apologize for saying it, but try as I might, I could not find where you said evolution was directed. It must have been someone else on another link. However, from your comments, you do seem to agree.

The topic of our conversation was, "Where does new information come from?" As your quote from TalkOrigins stated, "Mutation is the only natural process that adds variation to populations." The topic of that link was concerning selection of preexisting information and creation of new variation.

Your quote stated ALL of the components of evolution, "reproduction of generation upon generation, occasional mutations, and most importantly, natural selection". Passing genes to future generations, natural selection, genetic drift (if you want to separate it or add it), all these things are testable, observable, and repeatable. These are said to be components of evolution as well as components of Intelligent Design. The only difference is, evolution builds from the ground up on new information coming from mutations while Intelligent Design has all the information to start with and that information is segregated and resorted. (Intelligent Design does not specify who or what created that information. Some believe it's God, others believe it's aliens, and one believes it's the Spaghetti Monster.)

The only component left is mutations. And, your link from TalkOrigins, and the ones I found from Berkeley and Penn State support the idea of the only source of new information is from mutations. If evolution relies on components, and all the components are in place but one, then it follows that evolution hinges on mutations. I didn't think that was hard to follow. Neither did I think Penn State's page on antibiotics resistance was unclear in stating resistance was already present. Is that somehow "twisting" things? Is Penn State's, Berkeley's, and Lederberg's not published?

"The experiement by Lederberg is not the opposite conclusion of Talk Origins." Berkeley's site: "So the penicillin-resistant bacteria were there in the population before they encountered penicillin." TalkOrigin's site: "Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations." Any questions?

I don't know whether you are unable to follow simple lines of reasoning or your presuppositions are causing you to have the "2001" type of "Cognitive Dissonance". http://www.origins.org/articles/steinman_2001principle.html

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985); adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975); the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980); evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998); modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984); evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins: Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)

For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000). RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Gr,

Here is the reference for Ledeberg. I suggest you google for it and read the entire paper.

Lederberg, J. and E. M. Lederberg, 1952. Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406.

The statement you are citing is only about finding bacteria that already have preexisting adaptations to penicillin which is a small part of the whole paper. There are other experiments within that paper that deal with novel adaptations.

Read the whole paper instead trying to take specific passages out of context and make it look like statements are in conflict. This is a very typical of creationists to do and I consider it to be the same as lying.

gr 9 years, 2 months ago

Umm, Kodiak, didn't we already establish TalkOrigins makes conclusions opposite of the researchers and well-known universities and that you need a more credible source? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

While a classic copy and paste item, consider the nylon claim. Did you ignore the PennState item on resistance being already present? Do you really think nylon is somehow new material? It's made up of existing atoms, and has amide linkages which bacteria break down in proteins. Nothing exciting there. However in this case, the mechanism is different from that.

K. Kato, et al., 'A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2', Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):25852590, 1995. One year later than your quote. What happened to peer review - not on TalkOrigins.

1,535 bases in the plasmid before a stop codon. A frameshift would likely cause many stop codons.

Prijambada et al. achieved nylon degrading ability in nine days suggesting a special mechanism. (Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5):20202022, 1995)
All three genes were on the plasmids rather than the chromosome. In fact, the bacteria themselves are very much the same as when named in the late 1800s. Amazing, considering number of generations it would have gone through.

Until further information on how these plasmids enable the bacteria to use new food sources, one could suppose that directed mutations on multiple codons in a plasmid, but not the chromosome, provide new information in a very short amount of time. I'm not sure it's exactly the type of evolution you are suggesting.

Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:37803784, 1992.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

"Umm, Kodiak, didn't we already establish TalkOrigins makes conclusions opposite of the researchers and well-known universities and that you need a more credible source?"

Umm no gr. That is you who can't seem to follow simple lines of facts without confused

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

"While a classic copy and paste item, consider the nylon claim. Did you ignore the PennState item on resistance being already present? Do you really think nylon is somehow new material? It's made up of existing atoms, and has amide linkages which bacteria break down in proteins. Nothing exciting there. However in this case, the mechanism is different from that."

Ummm Gr, what does resistance item have to do with Nylon.
Umm Gr you misunderstood the Penn State item. Ummm Gr, you are an idiot.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

First, a little background. Nylon is an artificial polymer not found in nature. Indeed, not only is the nylon polymer not found in nature, neither are the linkages that bind the subunits together. Nylon first entered the environment in the 1930's. By 1975, bacteria capable of hydrolysing nylon were found in wastewater from nylon plants.

Now, it is obvious that the gene(s) for hydrolysing nylon cannot have been present from the beginning, as in the absence of the substrate (nylon, not present before 1930), the gene product is non-functional, and the gene would be mutated to uselessness (or an entirely different function) in a few hundred years by random mutations, let alone thousands.

Faced with such an obvious production of a new gene with a novel function, the first thing creationists tried to do was claim this was a loss of information, that the nylonases represented a protein-digesting protein (protease) that had lost substrate specificity. That of course didn't fly, as the nylonases are exquisitely specific, act on no known amide bond other than the nylon beta amide bond, and have no relationship to any known protease.

Some more background, in Flavobacterium there are four nylonase genes, nylA, nylB and nylB' (which are duplicates) and nylC, carried on one plasmid. In Pseudomonas there are two nylonase genes (nyl A and nyl B, homologous to the nylA and nylB genes in Flavobacterium) carried on two different plasmids. The nylB gene does most of the heavy lifting, so to speak, and it is the nylB gene that was formed from a deletion mutation and subsequent frame shift in the RSII repetitive element. The key here is that the mutation was in an internally repetitive sequence of DNA. Frameshifts in non-repetitive sequences usually end up with a high probability of producing a premature stop codon, resulting in production of short non-functional proteins. However, repetitive sequences are very likely to not produce premature stop codons, and it is likely that long, functional proteins can be produced by frameshifts in these proteins. In the case of nylB, an insertion of a T at position 99 in the repetitive sequence resulted in a start codon and a stop codon some 392 amino acids away.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

"Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes: 1. There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid."

Transposable elements are relatively short sequences of DNA that can move around the genome by themselves. Don Batten suggests the presence of transposable elements means the plasmid is "designed" to be adaptive. Well, transposable elements can result in rapid adaptation, but the mechanism is pure random mutation and natural selection. Transposons are not specifically targeted anywhere, but jump about at random without regard to the cell's "need". They can generate new enzymes by producing recombination of existing enzymes, but they are just as likely to cause damage. One strain produced by researchers had lost nylA as the transposable elements cut it out. Transposable elements are well known as possible agents of evolution.

"2. All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements?"

Firstly, the transposable elements are 880 bp and they are not identical, they contain duplications and inversions. Now, Don Batten seems to think that it would take massive mutations to produce the nylonase genes. However, nylB is a one BP insertion, it doesn't take much to make these genes (and nylB' is a duplicate of nylB). Furthermore, the nylA and nylB genes are on different plasmids in Pseudomonas (which doesn't have nylC). It is very likely that the genes arose on different plasmids and were stitched together by the transposable elements at a later stage. Furthermore, the transposable elements (IS6100) are present in many different bacteria and are very strongly conserved, suggesting they do not tolerate mutations very well. So given that the transposable elements are conserved in sequence between different bacteria, and that you don't need many mutations to make a functional nylonase, this objection is void.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

"3. All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids."

Well, we only HAVE two species of bacteria with these genes, and one seems to have got its genes from another, so it is hardly surprising. They make a big deal that getting all three genes on one plasmid is improbable (but not particularly improbable), while ignoring that in Pseudomonas the (two) genes are on different plasmids and only in Flavobacteria are they are on the same plasmid. Transposable elements have a habit of carrying genes around, so it is not at all unlikely that the genes originally evolved on different plasmids, or even the chromosome, and then were stitched together into one plasmid in Flavobacterium. Furthermore, a large proportion of the genes on plasmids deal with xenobiotic handling or metabolic functions (nylC is next to a cluster of oligopeptide transporters), indeed in Pseudomonas most of the xenobiotic degradation genes are on plasmids, so it is entirely likely that a xenobiotic handling enzyme will arise from mutations of xenobiotic handling genes.

"4. The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons."

To start off with, this statement is wrong. NylB, nylB' and nylC in Flavobacterium have no stop codons in the antisense strand, as does nylB in Pseudomonas (it doesn't have nylC). Three of the four genes are nylB, not four independent genes as implied.

Now, having no stop codons in the antisense strand (that is, the partner of the coding DNA strand, remember that DNA is double stranded, and only one strand is translated) is a bit unusual, but the probability they quote (10-12) is dead wrong, the probability is 0.0001. As the three nylB genes are, well, nylB, it is not at all unusual for them to share this property. Furthermore, as nylB is descended from a peptide with many internal repeats, and itself contains a fair number of internal repeats, this makes it less likely to generate stop codons in the first place.

Don Batten's statement, "Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons" is wrong. Yomo et al. show no such thing, they don't mention it at all. As noted above, the precursor sequence to nylB was an internally repetitious sequence, and repetitive sequences are very likely to not produce premature stop codons for significant lengths.

Batten also writes "Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation..."

Actually, the statements express their excitement. They think they have found a new evolutionary mechanism (amongst other things they suggest that new genes could be produced from antisense strands of functional genes).

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

"5. The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection."

Oh dear, it happened too fast. In actual fact, it was 9 days before colonies could grow at all on a simple nylon dimer, and three months before fast growing strains that could handle linear and cyclic dimers were isolated. This is typical of random mutation, a simple mutation allows the bacterial to just cope with the xenobiotic, allowing it a small selective advantage, and subsequent mutations improve on the initial weak activity. The time scale is not at all unusual for random mutation (if anything a bit slow).

"6. The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes."

Not true, as before, the nylB group comes from a frameshift of an internally repetitious gene (so not surprisingly it is novel). NylA and NylC have not had homologous genes identified as of 2000, but then again a lot of bacterial sequencing has been done since, and as Don Batten states in a footnote, no Flavobacterium genome has yet been sequenced. Gene duplication is a major sources of new genes, but frame shifts, recombination and so on are all other sources of genes.

The whole article tries to show that the nylB (and other genes) cannot occur by random mutation, and must occur by directed mutation. They draw attention to B-cell hypermutation (which generates diversity in antibody genes) in vertebrates as an example of "directed" mutation. Unfortunately for them, hypermutation in B-cells is pure random shuffling with the occasional insertion, deletion and frame shift.

Generation of the nylon hydrolysing genes is standard "mutation followed by selection". The AiG article shows once again how poor their understanding of both biology and evolutionary theory is.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

Gr,

Once again you have been copying ideas out of creation sites and once again I have merely copied responses to those ideas and criticisms to those ideas.

I guarantee it you will not read through those responses or maybe you will just change the subject to something else. I don't know. I do think you are an idiot though and that is not name calling.

For example: Here is your paragraph from above...

"I found many examples of resistant organisms which have nothing to do with new information. It is usually loss of information which prevents the pesticide, antibiotic, or organism from attacking it. In bacteria, there are examples of bacteria crossbreeding with others to transfer existing resistance. And, think how crop breeders use certain bacteria to insert genes from one plant species into another. I also found mention of bacteria being thawed from sources before antibiotics were developed, which were resistant to them. http://www.bmb.psu.edu/courses/micro106/... (bottom of first paragraph) Better find something more credible than TalkOrgins."

Ok Gr, are you being stupid here or are you trying to mislead. Do you understand where antibiotics come from. Why don't you explain to us how penicillin was discovered. OH I SEE. An organism was already making this substance before we discovered it as an antibiotic. In fact all antibiotics are exactly that, substances that ALREADY EXIST IN NATURE. Huh. Well lets see here I guess that would explain why there are some bacteria that are already resistant to it because such resistance has ALREADY EVOLVED from these naturally occuring chemicals. In fact Gr, if you continue to read the very reference you just provided, it explains why there are already resistant bacteria which is actually a result of evolution. Amazing what you can do when you cut and paste statements out of context.

So here is my dilemma. Are you lying or are you an idiot. I have decided to stay with the idiot hypothesis since you are supposedly a christian and christians do not lie. So you must be an idiot.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

More info gr,

Sorry, AiG, but just because something is on a plasmid doesn't mean it's always been there! In fact, the plasmid involved in this case is very well known and characterized. Scientists have studied both the original (pre-mutation) plasmid and the novel (post-mutation) plasmid, in great detail. It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift. This mutation did not exist 60 years ago. If this gene was always there, whether in a plasmid or not, we can reasonably wonder why a bacteria would have a gene for hydrolysing an artificial polymer that did not exist until just a few decades ago; and why, in the absence of such a substrate, was the gene not mutated to uselessness over the millenia?

Was the plasmid slipped in from another bacterium? NO!! The plasmid in question, pOAD2, is just one of three plasmids that are harbored by the bacterium under investigation here, Flavobacterium Sp. K172. Here are some citations to back this up:

"Sequence analysis of a cryptic plasmid from Flavobacterium sp. KP1, a psychrophilic bacterium," Makoto Ashiuchi, Mia Md. Zakaria, Yuriko Sakaguchi, Toshiharu Yagi, FEMS (Federation of European Microbiological Societies) Microbiology Letters 170 (1999), 243-249.

"Bacteria of genus Flavobacterium, Gram-negative bacteria, are widely distributed in soil and fresh marine waters. Some of them harbor plasmid(s) involved in metabolism of synthetic organic compounds. Flavobacterium sp. K172 harbors plasmids, pOAD1, pOAD2 and pOAD3; pOAD2 (43.6 kbp) encodes nylon oligomer degradation genes." "A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.," Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953.

"The EI-encoding gene (F-nylA) and EII-encoding gene (F-nylB) of Flavobacterium sp. K172 are located on plasmid pOAD2 (44 kb), one of the three plasmids harbored in strain K172." "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984.

Kodiac 9 years, 2 months ago

"Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein." It's interesting to note that the precise plasmid of Flavobacterium sp. K172, namely pOAD2, was cited by Susumu Ohno fully eleven years before the publication of the "new evidence" that AiG claims " shows that the ability was due to plasmids..."

The Bottom Line: Just because this mutation wasn't confined to a cell's main chromosomes does not mean it didn't happen. (A plasmid is defined as a replicon - a replicating piece of DNA - that is inherited in an extrachromosomal state.) This case still provides an excellent example of a New Protein that evolved without the assistance of an Intelligent Designer."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.