Mutations do not produce real change

[coelacanth]

I understand that the genetic markers are not common to all organisms; the Lord simply made X number of blueprints and used each of them more than once. To me, it's crystal clear. God can't lie.....and He hasn't tried. Bottom line is this though; regardless of which theory or belief we embrace.....we cannot comprehend the mind of God and we will know for sure when He decides it's time.

It's remarkable how we can see predictable patterns in how God uses those blueprints then. Apparently God started off with the most basic and rudimentary blueprints for early prokaryotes, modified his blueprints bit by bit over thousands of millions of years, gradually killed off his early blueprints as he ever-so-slowly introduced more and more complex ones, branching them off into various kingdoms and phylums and families according to an order that is completely different from what Gen 1 of the Bible tells us, whereas at the onset of modern science where we actually have knowledge about genetics and the principles of Mendelian heredity and the ability to actually measure changes in organisms, God abruptly ceased his interfering and let nature take its course so that His hand cannot be detected and recorded by science.

It's really remarkable how creationists invariably falls back on "we can't understand God!" to excuse facts that punch holes all over their nonsensical, baseless speculations. I've never really understood how the creationist can bear to live with the shame of such intellectual dishonesty, or if they feel any shame at all... but that's just me.

I guess Jesus was nonsensical as well as He reiterated parts of creation as it were fact, which it is. As for punching holes that is merely your belief based on your faith in what scientists tell you they theoretically know, which they merely theorize and don't really know at all. So that is your faith and God sees you as nonsensical for rejecting Him and His truth, which is, in fact, the only truth.

[Valoran]

I guess Jesus was nonsensical as well as He reiterated parts of creation as it were fact, which it is.

I guess you pretty much nailed it on the head.

As for punching holes that is merely your belief based on your faith in what scientists tell you they theoretically know, which they merely theorize and don't really know at all. So that is your faith and God sees you as nonsensical for rejecting Him and His truth, which is, in fact, the only truth.

The evidence for macroevolution has been provided repeatedly in this thread. They have been repeatedly ignored. I doubt reposting them again is going to change anything, but I guess it can't hurt to try.

*links removed*

Can you either refute the evidence or explain how to re-interpret them to support creationism? Can you provide any evidence to support the claims of the article linked to by the OP, which as far as I can tell is unfortunately nothing but an empty assertion elaborated out using pages of pseudo-scientific babbling in an attempt to lend it an air of credibility?

Edited February 7, 2012 by ~candice~

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Would you mind posting the evidence behind your statement?

You mean will I post it again? Sure.

My post here includes two pieces of evidence:

A third one would be endogenous retroviruses. How does creationism explain the fact that humans and chimpanzees share some ERVs in their genome?

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

All you're presenting here is how evolutionists affirm the consequent.

The reasoning you're providing is as follows: If A then B. B therefore A. That doesn't confirm that A (in this case evolution) is the case. It simply demonstrates that A has not been disconfirmed by the present case study.

I've demonstrated that to you on another thread already.

Just because these case studies don't disconfirm evolution, that doesn't mean they disconfirm special creation.

Now, if you look into Behe's recent work on mutations in micro organisms he examines both prokaryote and eukaryote cells and empirically quantifies the capacity for change via mutation.

Far from revealing great potential for change, when a systematic quantitative examination is made (unlike the speculations made by the case studies you present above) the results reveal the limitations of selection and mutation.

Single celled organisms remain single celled organisms, and function much like they did in the billions of past generations, though sometimes less efficiently. The indication is that single celled organisms couldn’t “evolve” regardless of the timeline, given the effects on their genome.

Contrast that to the macro level of increasingly complex, interdependent change required in mega fauna that do not reproduce exponentially and in such a short period of time as the micro organisms, and human evolution is simply quantitatively empirically mysterious.

So, far from the creationists fleeing from scientific evaluation of genetics, I find it interesting that the evolutionist must appeal to affirming the consequent of their assumptions in selected case studies that cannot be repeated, but then shies away when science steps up to the plate.

[Valoran]

Now, if you look into Behe's recent work on mutations in micro organisms he examines both prokaryote and eukaryote cells and empirically quantifies the capacity for change via mutation.

Far from revealing great potential for change, when a systematic quantitative examination is made (unlike the speculations made by the case studies you present above) the results reveal the limitations of selection and mutation.

Single celled organisms remain single celled organisms, and function much like they did in the billions of past generations, though sometimes less efficiently. The indication is that single celled organisms couldn’t “evolve” regardless of the timeline, given the effects on their genome.

I won't comment on this recent work of Behe's that you're referring to since I'm not familiar with it and it isn't linked to so I can read it for myself, but the fact is that Behe is a sham whose work has been debunked by both the courts and the scientific community. As for your claim that single-celled organisms cannot evolve into multicellularity, we actually have direct evidence that proves otherwise:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/

So either you're misinterpreting Behe's work, or Behe is simply up to his old tricks again.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Now, if you look into Behe's recent work on mutations in micro organisms he examines both prokaryote and eukaryote cells and empirically quantifies the capacity for change via mutation.

Far from revealing great potential for change, when a systematic quantitative examination is made (unlike the speculations made by the case studies you present above) the results reveal the limitations of selection and mutation.

Single celled organisms remain single celled organisms, and function much like they did in the billions of past generations, though sometimes less efficiently. The indication is that single celled organisms couldn’t “evolve” regardless of the timeline, given the effects on their genome.

I won't comment on this recent work of Behe's that you're referring to since I'm not familiar with it and it isn't linked to so I can read it for myself, but the fact is that Behe is a sham whose work has been debunked by both the courts and the scientific community. As for your claim that single-celled organisms cannot evolve into multicellularity, we actually have direct evidence that proves otherwise:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/

So either you're misinterpreting Behe's work, or Behe is simply up to his old tricks again.

... or you're presenting a false dichotomy and Behe's work actually indicates what I presented since you even admitted that you're unfamiliar with his work and therefore wouldn't know enough to inform the dichotomy you present as the linked work may not be the same as Behe's. I can't help but point out that you say you won't comment on Behe's recent work because you're not informed on that subject, and then you go ahead and comment on his work anyways without being informed.

But, as for the article you linked, notice that it says "... while the latest work doesn’t duplicate prehistoric transitions, it could help reveal the principles guiding them".

The reason for this is presented here "Our yeast are not utilizing ‘latent’ multicellular genes and reverting back to their wild state. The initial evolution of snowflake yeast is the result of mutations that break the normal mitotic reproductive process, preventing daughter cells from being released as they normally would when division is complete. Again, we know from knockout libraries that this phenotype can be a consequence of many different mutations. This is a loss of function, not a gain of function. You could probably evolve a similar phenotype in nearly any microbe (other than bacteria, binary fission is a fundamentally different process). We find that it is actually much harder to go back to unicellularity once snowflake yeast have evolved, because there are many more ways to break something via mutation than fix it" (source: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/709/did-researchers-evolve-multicellular-yeast-or-did-they-just-turn-on-multicellula).

It looks to me like this is far more like taking a single cell of a multicellular organism, and watching it revert back to its multicelluar state than a formerly single celled organism becoming multicellular.

Therefore, I don't see how this demonstrates how life could have slide from a single celled organism to a multicellular one, if the cell hadn't already been conducive to that kind of state.

That is the substance of Behe's work, and it seems to me like these kind of invalid, and over-hyped diversions from that kind of empirical study demonstrate a sort of desperation to affirm an a priori assumption of naturalism, seen in the expressions of those who worked on the project you linked: "I’m certain that rapid evolution occurs. We just don’t know to look for it.”

Being certain of what you don't know what to look for begs the question.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

All you're presenting here is how evolutionists affirm the consequent.

The reasoning you're providing is as follows: If A then B. B therefore A. That doesn't confirm that A (in this case evolution) is the case. It simply demonstrates that A has not been disconfirmed by the present case study.

I've demonstrated that to you on another thread already.

Just because these case studies don't disconfirm evolution, that doesn't mean they disconfirm special creation.

Now, if you look into Behe's recent work on mutations in micro organisms he examines both prokaryote and eukaryote cells and empirically quantifies the capacity for change via mutation.

Far from revealing great potential for change, when a systematic quantitative examination is made (unlike the speculations made by the case studies you present above) the results reveal the limitations of selection and mutation.

Single celled organisms remain single celled organisms, and function much like they did in the billions of past generations, though sometimes less efficiently. The indication is that single celled organisms couldn’t “evolve” regardless of the timeline, given the effects on their genome.

Contrast that to the macro level of increasingly complex, interdependent change required in mega fauna that do not reproduce exponentially and in such a short period of time as the micro organisms, and human evolution is simply quantitatively empirically mysterious.

So, far from the creationists fleeing from scientific evaluation of genetics, I find it interesting that the evolutionist must appeal to affirming the consequent of their assumptions in selected case studies that cannot be repeated, but then shies away when science steps up to the plate.

My only statement was that genetics give us enough evidence to conclude common descent even w/o fossil evidence. I see people bring up fossil evidence and try to beat it up but I don't see them do the same to what our genomes tell us. The story they tell us is that we humans share lineage with other primates. Either we share these genetic traits / errors / markers because we're related or we don't share them but rather just happen to have similarities. I just think it makes more sense to believe the former. After all, it's not like we have these same similarities with cats or dolphins, it's specifically the other primates we show signs of similar genetic makeup...exactly what evolution would predict.

I understand, but I disagree. Other primates are similar to us, therefore we can assume similarities in design.

My point is that there are avenues in genetics to which creationists appeal. It is not my tendency, nor is it the tendency of many, to flee from arguing from genetics. Personally I think the strongest evidence against evolution arises from exploration of genetics.

And as for not having the same similarities with cats or dolphins, perhaps not on that point but we're always discovering things that are counter-intuitive to evolutionary assumptions (I thought this was a good example of something counter-intuitive to evolution when I stumbled across it when it was posted http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/first-pigs-then-bacteria-now-insulin-flowers) so it's not nearly enough to find examples that are not counter intuitive to evolution, in order to make a case for evolution.

Anyways, I'm taking a bit of a break from lengthy posts for now, but maybe in a bit we can explore some of the implications of genetics on evolutionary theory.

Till then God bless you,

O'l E-dog.

[Valoran]

... or you're presenting a false dichotomy and Behe's work actually indicates what I presented since you even admitted that you're unfamiliar with his work and therefore wouldn't know enough to inform the dichotomy you present as the linked work may not be the same as Behe's. I can't help but point out that you say you won't comment on Behe's recent work because you're not informed on that subject, and then you go ahead and comment on his work anyways without being informed.

But, as for the article you linked, notice that it says "... while the latest work doesn’t duplicate prehistoric transitions, it could help reveal the principles guiding them".

The reason for this is presented here "Our yeast are not utilizing ‘latent’ multicellular genes and reverting back to their wild state. The initial evolution of snowflake yeast is the result of mutations that break the normal mitotic reproductive process, preventing daughter cells from being released as they normally would when division is complete. Again, we know from knockout libraries that this phenotype can be a consequence of many different mutations. This is a loss of function, not a gain of function. You could probably evolve a similar phenotype in nearly any microbe (other than bacteria, binary fission is a fundamentally different process). We find that it is actually much harder to go back to unicellularity once snowflake yeast have evolved, because there are many more ways to break something via mutation than fix it" (source: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/709/did-researchers-evolve-multicellular-yeast-or-did-they-just-turn-on-multicellula).

It looks to me like this is far more like taking a single cell of a multicellular organism, and watching it revert back to its multicelluar state than a formerly single celled organism becoming multicellular.

Therefore, I don't see how this demonstrates how life could have slide from a single celled organism to a multicellular one, if the cell hadn't already been conducive to that kind of state.

That is the substance of Behe's work, and it seems to me like these kind of invalid, and over-hyped diversions from that kind of empirical study demonstrate a sort of desperation to affirm an a priori assumption of naturalism, seen in the expressions of those who worked on the project you linked: "I’m certain that rapid evolution occurs. We just don’t know to look for it.”

Being certain of what you don't know what to look for begs the question.

I suggest you might want to try actually reading what you're copying and pasting. If "their yeast" weren't utilizing 'latent' multicellular genes, what then is the basis of your claim that the yeast was multicellular in the first place if they didn't utilize multicellular genes?

What we have here is a blindly copied and pasted snippet that actually works against your own claims, and assertions from you about Behe's work which you refuse to link to for some reason so that we can read it. What exactly did Behe's experiment involve, and how does one reconcile it with the fact that we actually have direct observational evidence of multicellular organisms evolving from previously unicellular ones?

It offends my intellect. talkorigins is misleading propaganda.

Behe's sham science that has been repeatedly defeated by both the courts and the scientific community and his prancing around masquerading as a legitimate scientist offends my intellect as well. Unlike you, however, I'm willing to look at his research and discuss whatever merits it may have instead of simply running away - if you'd be so kind as to link us to it.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

... or you're presenting a false dichotomy and Behe's work actually indicates what I presented since you even admitted that you're unfamiliar with his work and therefore wouldn't know enough to inform the dichotomy you present as the linked work may not be the same as Behe's. I can't help but point out that you say you won't comment on Behe's recent work because you're not informed on that subject, and then you go ahead and comment on his work anyways without being informed.

But, as for the article you linked, notice that it says "... while the latest work doesn’t duplicate prehistoric transitions, it could help reveal the principles guiding them".

The reason for this is presented here "Our yeast are not utilizing ‘latent’ multicellular genes and reverting back to their wild state. The initial evolution of snowflake yeast is the result of mutations that break the normal mitotic reproductive process, preventing daughter cells from being released as they normally would when division is complete. Again, we know from knockout libraries that this phenotype can be a consequence of many different mutations. This is a loss of function, not a gain of function. You could probably evolve a similar phenotype in nearly any microbe (other than bacteria, binary fission is a fundamentally different process). We find that it is actually much harder to go back to unicellularity once snowflake yeast have evolved, because there are many more ways to break something via mutation than fix it" (source: http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/709/did-researchers-evolve-multicellular-yeast-or-did-they-just-turn-on-multicellula).

It looks to me like this is far more like taking a single cell of a multicellular organism, and watching it revert back to its multicelluar state than a formerly single celled organism becoming multicellular.

Therefore, I don't see how this demonstrates how life could have slide from a single celled organism to a multicellular one, if the cell hadn't already been conducive to that kind of state.

That is the substance of Behe's work, and it seems to me like these kind of invalid, and over-hyped diversions from that kind of empirical study demonstrate a sort of desperation to affirm an a priori assumption of naturalism, seen in the expressions of those who worked on the project you linked: "I’m certain that rapid evolution occurs. We just don’t know to look for it.”

Being certain of what you don't know what to look for begs the question.

I suggest you might want to try actually reading what you're copying and pasting. If "their yeast" weren't utilizing 'latent' multicellular genes, what then is the basis of your claim that the yeast was multicellular in the first place if they didn't utilize multicellular genes?

Oops - I did read it, I just copied and pasted the wrong part. Here's the retort:

"Within the Fungi, simple linear multicellularity of hyphae occurs in all major clades (see below), but only Ascomycota and Basidomycota display more complex two- and three- dimensional multicellularity in the form of sexual spore- producing fruiting bodies. In both of these groups, reversals to unicellular lifeforms have occurred, for example, Saccharomyces and many other related yeasts in the Saccharomycotina (Ascomycota) or Cryptococcus albidus and related species in the hymenomycete clade of Basidiomycota (de Hoog et al. 2000, p. 130).

What we have here is a blindly copied and pasted snippet that actually works against your own claims,

If you followed the link, you'd have seen that I just pasted the wrong part.

and assertions from you about Behe's work which you refuse to link to for some reason so that we can read it.

If you want a soundbyte get a link. If you want to understand something, read a book.

But Valorian, I wasn't talking to you when I wrote the post to which you responded, because you're fundamentally incapable of having a rational discussion.

During our last interaction you asked if I could furnish support that sedimentary deposits could be laid down rapidly, and I told you that I would have you affirm that such is the case. I then told you that I would do so by having you agree that polystrate fossils, as they were dubbed, were explained away by rapid sedimentary deposits that created layering and you furnished the link to confirm that was the case.

Somehow you then managed to pretend that the conversation didn't go just as I said it would and pretended that I was arguing from a YEC interpretation of those fossils. Well, how you thought I could get you to affirm rapid sedimentary deposits using polystrat fossils according to a Young Earth Creationist interpretation is a mystery. Why would a creationist say that an atheist would affirm their interpretation for them?

You demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're not interested in honest discussion, and let me assure you I'm not interested in playing games with you. I shouldn't even have let myself get suckered into replying to you in the first place.

So, instead of making fun of you, I'll refrain from feeding the troll any further.

[Valoran]

Oops - I did read it, I just copied and pasted the wrong part. Here's the retort:

"Within the Fungi, simple linear multicellularity of hyphae occurs in all major clades (see below), but only Ascomycota and Basidomycota display more complex two- and three- dimensional multicellularity in the form of sexual spore- producing fruiting bodies. In both of these groups, reversals to unicellular lifeforms have occurred, for example, Saccharomyces and many other related yeasts in the Saccharomycotina (Ascomycota) or Cryptococcus albidus and related species in the hymenomycete clade of Basidiomycota (de Hoog et al. 2000, p. 130).

What do Ascomycota and Basidomycota being multicellular have to do with S. cerviseae being multicellular or otherwise?

You might care to know that yeast is prominent as an example of being a unicellular fungus, and that it was actually the first eukaryotic organism to have its genome fully sequenced back in the 90s. Can you show us where are these latent multicellular genes in the yeast genome? What is the basis of your claim that yeast once used to be multicellular and it was simply drawing on its latent genomes to revert back to its previous multicellular form?

If you followed the link, you'd have seen that I just pasted the wrong part.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to read your mind and guess what you really intended to post.

If you want a soundbyte get a link. If you want to understand something, read a book.

But Valorian, I wasn't talking to you when I wrote the post to which you responded, because you're fundamentally incapable of having a rational discussion.

During our last interaction you asked if I could furnish support that sedimentary deposits could be laid down rapidly, and I told you that I would have you affirm that such is the case. I then told you that I would do so by having you agree that polystrate fossils, as they were dubbed, were explained away by rapid sedimentary deposits that created layering and you furnished the link to confirm that was the case.

Somehow you then managed to pretend that the conversation didn't go just as I said it would and pretended that I was arguing from a YEC interpretation of those fossils. Well, how you thought I could get you to affirm rapid sedimentary deposits using polystrat fossils according to a Young Earth Creationist interpretation is a mystery. Why would a creationist say that an atheist would affirm their interpretation for them?

You demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're not interested in honest discussion, and let me assure you I'm not interested in playing games with you. I shouldn't even have let myself get suckered into replying to you in the first place.

So, instead of making fun of you, I'll refrain from feeding the troll any further.

If you want to argue that soil and ash can be rapidly deposited, be my guest. I have no objections whatsoever. What I started off with was the assumption that you were going to present evidence for the YEC position since that was what you went into the previous discussion with, having assumed that you were interested in honest debate instead of playing word games. If you ever feel like providing evidence of rock sedimentary layers being formed rapidly, I'll be willing to listen.

You talk of irrationality and trolling, but you turn tail and run when asked to link to Behe's work? I'm not even asking you to explain his research since that's only a waste of time given how you display the apparent lack of ability to analyze what you're copying and pasting, all I'm asking for is a link to it so we can read it for ourselves, and you immediately throw insults and run away with your tail between your legs. Even for a creationist, this is hopelessly incompetent of you.

[~candice~]

I understand that the genetic markers are not common to all organisms; the Lord simply made X number of blueprints and used each of them more than once. To me, it's crystal clear. God can't lie.....and He hasn't tried. Bottom line is this though; regardless of which theory or belief we embrace.....we cannot comprehend the mind of God and we will know for sure when He decides it's time.

It's remarkable how we can see predictable patterns in how God uses those blueprints then. Apparently God started off with the most basic and rudimentary blueprints for early prokaryotes, modified his blueprints bit by bit over thousands of millions of years, gradually killed off his early blueprints as he ever-so-slowly introduced more and more complex ones, branching them off into various kingdoms and phylums and families according to an order that is completely different from what Gen 1 of the Bible tells us, whereas at the onset of modern science where we actually have knowledge about genetics and the principles of Mendelian heredity and the ability to actually measure changes in organisms, God abruptly ceased his interfering and let nature take its course so that His hand cannot be detected and recorded by science.

It's really remarkable how creationists invariably falls back on "we can't understand God!" to excuse facts that punch holes all over their nonsensical, baseless speculations. I've never really understood how the creationist can bear to live with the shame of such intellectual dishonesty, or if they feel any shame at all... but that's just me.

I think you've made an error here, in that you have forced the Genesis account to be scientific - literal. You compared the order of creation in Genesis to that proposed by modern science. Genesis is not scientific, it is spiritual. The scientific hypothesis did not come about until the 16th century, so it is not possible that Genesis was written with the intent to be equalled with any scientific hypothesis, and I don't believe Jesus would have misinterpreted it the same way you just did.

I have no shame, not even an iota of shame, I boast in the Lord.

I guess Jesus was nonsensical as well as He reiterated parts of creation as it were fact, which it is.

I guess you pretty much nailed it on the head.

See above.