questions evolutionists can't or won't answer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff:
Technically, the ToE doesn't need to explain abiogenesis because the ToE isn't concerned with the start of life - JUST THE CHANGES THEREAFTER. If it would help JP to focus on offering a legitimate challenge, I would stipulate that gawd, or IPUs or Leprechauns in Labcoats created terrestrial life in the form of single-celled organisms.

---

--Correct me please, but, I think you may be into one aspect of ‘evolution’, the one we honestly should construe as the misnomer for ‘beneficial life-form-mutations’, essentially (if there be such a thing).
Does not the ToE exist with stellar events (stellar evolution) and other events PRIOR to ‘life’?

--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein who?--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view).--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE. Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality.--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones.--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC.--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe. The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data. ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question.--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right? The ToM has failed to demonstrate ANY significant beneficial mutation (for a reproductively ongoing population), even by gene splicing. And what about the ka-zillions of such incredible mutations necessary to form a viable organism, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo.--I humbly request anyone: Dr. Taz, Gene, Moose, Darwin_T, Shraf, Percy, TC, and/or others to debate any of the above statements. Please pardon any and all ‘wrong’ statements, discrepancies, etc., as I, too, have been self-deceived by numerous multi-tiered and unchecked biases’.

To all who have responded to my questions evolutionists can't or won't answer (5/26/02), TC, Shraf, Moose, and others, please refer to the thread: ‘Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!’ for hopeful answers on solar time dilation relative to molecular clocks.I apologize for the lapse of my counter-arguments at this time. Thank you for your in-depth replies.
Suffice it to say, we should come to a head again on this shortly, hopefully with less whining about ID with comments like: Nope, wrong, sorry, Hondas aren’t like universes, and I have no idea what this (ToM) ‘theory of mutations’ is did you make it up?, etc.
Ah Shraf, you don’t remember the theory of mutation? Why its only the raw mechanism of the ToE (all evolutionists must swear by it or jump the boat), surely you of all scientists remembered that?More later, I hope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
You have objections to whether mutations occur or not? If you do object, then what is your mechenism for building biodiversity?

​

---

--'Mutation spots' are not raw mutations; they are 'built-in' within 'fine-tuned' and 'set-in' genetic complexities. In other words raw mutations would have to involve ‘explicit’ and entropically ‘risky’ recombinance for any macro-ToE to be valid. (Note: the term ‘raw’ mutation is an evo term). Such metastatic recombinance in nature and in labs has never been proven to make an intrinsically ‘better surviving’ organism, only a tumor-infested one. (Notwithstanding the terrific, yet ‘limited’ advances in DNA-recombinant technology) Perhaps one day bacteria and viruses may survive a trite ‘better’ by such metastatic recombinance; but I don’t see it yet, nor do I see it in animals and man. (I speak as a physician under cross-fire.)--Otherwise, such tumor-infested 'mutants' would become entropic (randomized) failures, in every case. (See older debates with Dr. Taz and Darwin_T under one of your 'ID' threads, I believe) ‘Mutation spots’ are the closest things to supposed raw mutations (allowing biodiversity), to the best of my logic. But these mutation spots are mere genetic variations and are always ‘checked’ holistically by the organism/population’s complicated genetic code. (Dr. Taz might undoubtedly say I’ve spoken ungrammatically here).Thus the mechanism is natural selection involving genetic variation(s) (not metastatic mutations) that exist within all populations to ‘enjoy’ limited biodiversity.
See Quetzel's non-mutational recapped NS mechanism under the thread "Falsification Theory of Natural Selection" (5/28/02); his evo-mechanism goes into great technical depth while covering the basics of NS as well.--This is mere micro-evolution in all its glory. (without any ‘raw’ mutations). True, many life-forms have ‘stretched’ the evolutionary ‘envelope’ beyond what it ‘appears’ intelligently designed for. (If anyone fails to compute ‘ID’, think Honda-Civic for purposes of illustration here) Yet, no ‘freak’ metastatic beneficial mutations are evidenced in any set-in complexities of present day organisms.

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity.

​

Without going into excruciating detail, the bit that I left out (because it wasn't germane to the specific topic) is that this variation is based on changes to the genetic code of the organism. Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases, etc) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction).

​

So it's still the old "mutationalist" explanation. NS operates on those genetic changes that cause changes in the phenotype of the organism. Sorry.

​

---

--No need to apologize; what you call ‘mutational’ is never ‘freak’ metastasis (AKA raw mutations). Nor is it actually new in the apriori population’s gene pool. I see all such recombinance as set-in, which becomes much clearer on the eukaryotic level and higher.The error of your ‘detailed’ mechanism is that entropic destruction occurs where mutation is uncontrolled in any 'reshuffling', transposition, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
What's left, therefore, are the few mutations that are either mild enough to permit the organism to live long enough to reproduce, OR provide a genuinely beneficial phenotypical change These are the mutations that create the actual heritable novelty in a population. They are not "in the a priori (sic) population’s gene pool". They represent NEW additions

​

Actually, your error is your misunderstanding that mutation = cancer. As I explained, this is not necessarily the case.

---

--Your response does not go unnoticed.--Calling things NEW additions seems rash from the ‘mega’ perspective of the ToE. I observe them as mere DIFFERENT LATENT manifestations, because:
1) They do appear grossly ‘walled in’ by genetic-structural boundaries of the organism. That every organism indeed has its genetic bounds is presently seen and expected.
2) What is new is never ‘significantly’ new: i.e., never beneficial enough to incrementally make a novel complicated biochemical (let alone cellular) labyrinth and/or algarhythm. Recombinant technology splices only in metastatic ways that benefit non-host organisms (e.g., for human exploitation).
3) New isnever enough to incrementally make novel complicated labyrinths and/or algarhythms become another kind of life form. Speciation (even in the form of polyploidy) never forms new complex algarhythms and/or labyrinths, only new latent ‘traits’.
--This aspect of your mechanism must never be over-generalized in science until demonstrated. Else you, too, become religious while inferring polyploid mutations (the raw mechanism of the ToE) to cause of life’s complex labyrinths and algarhythms.
4) The sums of ‘new’ additions never harmonize those exceedingly complex interactions of these labyrinths and algarhythms, which are so unique and ‘set-in’ within every biodiversity.--Metastasis is a term that may be used in genetics. Non-oncologists and laymen may adopt this cancerous term, to express cancerous reproductive aberrations (genetics) in gamete cells.
--Polyploidy is an interesting phenomenon, but again limited to mutation spots else you observe metastasis, decay, etc. No doubt metastasis arises in these [i]hot[/] spots as well. Randomness and decay, thus, are allowed ‘some’ free expression beyond the mainstream norm as in your multi-tiered mechanism of NS involving beneficial mutations.--Note: (Correct me if I’m wrong) You seem to be scientifically underplaying mutations in the mega-ToE. That in my perspective is ‘jumping the boat’. Do you not need to DRASTICALLY ‘play up’ ka-zillions of incremental beneficial mutations (vs mere traits) for the mega-ToE to be viable? (I invite anyone to debate this)--Does not reproductive metastasis (cancer) remain as the only viable mutational mechanism left for the mega-ToE at this point, Quetzel (or any one)?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
1. There’s no such thing as reproductive metastasis:
[/B][/QUOTE]DORLAND’S DEFINITION of metastasis: The transfer of disease from one organ or part to another not directly connected with it.
WEBSTER’S:
1. (Theol.) A spiritual change, as during baptism.
2. (Med.) A change in the location of a disease, as from one part to another. Dunglison.I’ve used the term metastasis, perhaps too loosely from your restricted ‘book’ perspective, I admit I can not find a better term at present to verbally express transfer of detrimental DNA to ‘non-direct’ parts of reproductive chromosomes: i.e., in gametes, diploid individuals, or other microbiological reproductive components of species. Perhaps you can suggest a better term.And the term labyrinth (Websters):
1 a : a place constructed of or full of intricate passageways and blind alleys
b : a maze (as in a garden) formed by paths separated by high hedges
2 : something extremely complex or tortuous in structure, arrangement, or character :
3 : a tortuous anatomical structure; especially : the internal ear or its bony or membranous partExamples are too numerous: ears, eyes, olfactory senses, sympathetics, reproductive systems, and the ka-zillions of biochemical labyrinths associated with each.The term algorithm= a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some endExamples are too numerous: ears, eyes, olfactory senses, sympathetics, reproductive systems, numerous other systems and the ka-zillions of biochemical algorithms associated with each: Positive and negative eedback loops of harmones, enzymes, etc. on the biomechanical level. Cascading events in blood coagulation, healing, inflammation, etc. etc. Time would fail to go into algorithms of the immune system(s), botanical and environmental algorithms [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
2. It’s not even ONE of the mechanisms for ToE, let alone the only viable one.
[/B][/QUOTE]Ah but it is the only viable one that I can conclude under the mutationalist scheme. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
Philip, I say this with all due respect, you really need to read some basic biology — I’m not sure you even understand what you’re arguing against.
[/B][/QUOTE]I’ve had too much biology (M.S.B.S), tutored and/or taught it on H.S., college, graduate, and post-graduate levels. Currently I have an applied working knowledge of it as a podiatric surgeon, etc. I admit my language is more crude compared to your scientific rhetoric (which I appreciate), but I believe I know what I’m arguing against:
1) A ToE that ‘forgets’ ‘beneficial mutations’ alone are the foundation of the mega-ToE.
2) The impossibility of such incrementally complex mutations forming labyrinths/ algorithms seen and expected to be seen everywhere in nature (without excuse).
3) Respectfully, human error and self-deception regarding ‘cause-effect’ relationships in biology.
4) My own misconceptions as well, in this field (which is why I enjoy discussing/arguing with you). That I may mature in my science as a physician, and in my ‘spiritual’ well-being, too.
5) The fraudulent and 'bigoted' study of our origins (both camps).--Philip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I have argued consistently (and repetitiously, I’m afraid) that beneficial mutations are only ONE aspect of the ToE.
Selection pressures operating on the phenotypical variations occurring in a given population of organisms — whether arising through mutation or the normal recombination/reshuffling of genetic material that occurs during gametogenesis — provide the foundation of the ToE.

---

(Note, before commencing, I appreciate your quoting Bandyopdhyay PK, et al, as I do not actually look up most Internet references; your own sequential logic seems to supercede theirs, however--no flattery intended)--Your quoted statement above is all that is necessary to refute. You just inferred normal recombination/reshuffling of genetic material and played-out all the freak mutations, rhetorically. You can’t do that Quetzel, not within the framework of the mega-ToE (supposed high level trans-taxonomic ‘speciation’) ... because:--Incrementally, Mega-ToE mutations/recombination/reshuffling must become abnormal, albeit beneficial to be viable: That is innumerable incremental mutations must be eventually become uncanny to be 'selected':--There can be nothing ‘normal’ about incrementally uncanny variations of ‘set in’ and highly interdependent complexities (not merely ICs )of organs, the higher-level organs, especially. Thus the mega-ToE of origins becomes increasingly impossible, the more interdependent the biological complexities become (see my foot example under the thread listed below).--At least call your theory of origins by its correct name: the Mega-ToM (the ‘M’ for ‘Mutants’ since ‘Metastasis’ is an unacceptable biological term at present)--The perpetrated fraud, self-deception, obstinacy, and/or delusion here is maxed-out, precisely here ... by numerous 'scientists'. Why, exactly, I won't sermonize here. (Note: Your keenness in this subject is nonetheless appreciated)--Now knowing you will perceive all this ‘Brad-like’, hypocritical, etc., I invite you to rebuke me here, but then, continue a logical rebuttal on the thread entitled: Has human evolution stopped. There, I logically explained why mega-evolution of the human foot has indeed stopped (and never started).

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 06-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I'm a bit unhappy, after the last two lengthy posts I provided, that this is the best you can come up with. Philip, it appears you are studiously ignoring my specific points. If this discussion is to continue, I would ask that you take a little more time and address or rebut the points I've made. Especially since the examples and discussion I have laboriously provided are direct refutations of many of your assertions. Thanks.

​

Meanwhile, you can try your hand at refuting any of the evidence I've provided in this thread. More handwaving or ignoring my posts will ultimately get you on my ignore list.

---

--When have I ignored any of your posts! I fished out info from your last post because many of your specific points there, I’ve already ‘dismissed’ from my perspective; that is, they are no longer dissonant to my scientific and/or ethical conscience. I’ve focused on the dissonant ones in order to cut to the chase. I, too, have spent hours of laborious time (probably exceeding yours) addressing your keen points, marveling at your rhetoric.--But enough!--You’ve got me convinced that meiosis is highly variable and even mutable (may I use that term) to allow much beneficial adaptation within the confines of the gene-pool
1)--Without arguing on terms, even a so-called ‘non-mutational’ meiotic mega-ToE mechanism appears to me as mutational or mutation-like, since eventually diploidy, recombinance, deletion, or other mutational (-like) phenomenon will have to occur in the chromosomes, right? That brings us back to mutations as being foundational in the ToE, Quetzel.
2)--Also, numerous Drosophilae studies seem to infer high taxonomic genetic limitations and restrictions don’t you think? Do you currently uphold that non-mutational mechanisms are foundational for fruit flies (or a more mutable pre-cursor) to ‘evolve’ into humans as such?
3)--Gross--not minute--mutations are necessary. I don’t see how anyone can conclude meiosis (that is ‘micro-mutational’) in NS is ever powerful enough (Dawkin’s word) to make sophisticated gross high taxonomic changes, due to the innumerable delicately balanced interdependent bio-complexities that must be negotiated with such changes.
--Thus, mutational/mutation-like changes is all I see for the mega-ToE to be viable. The necessary gross mutational/mutation-like changes (normal or abnormal) that are not neutral are almost always adverse, i.e., catastrophic to the delicately balanced interdependent bio-complexities of the organism. Extinction invariably follows such a course.
--The alternative, minute non-mutational micro-evolution fails in the mega-ToE as explained in 1. and 2. (above).If you don’t like my ‘hand-waving’, then I respect you if you put me on your taboo list.
--I can’t argue what is already clear to me, scientifically.
--It’s nearly impossible to win with a creationist at my age (45).
--My time is as valuable as yours. I’m not trying to cheapen your discussion. Forgive me if it appears that way, or if I have offended in any way.
--Now, I thoroughly appreciate your evo-stance, your coherence per se, your patience with me, and your very excellent discourse of Meiosis as a strong mechanism of genetic variation sans mutation. (I wish the others patiently laid it out and spelled it all out as you did. Note: The books, the experts on this panel, etc. do not (in my meager opinion) coherently nor mechanistically express the ToE to the same degree as you do.)