Where is the evidence for evolution?

In many ways, a discussion is a search for common ground. I think Scott is saying that it is difficult to tell if any progress toward a shared understanding is being made if you don't provide any indication that you understand and/or accept the explanations. In other words, do you feel that you and Scott have walked down at least a little of the same road together? It wasn't possible to tell.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

What my message was about was communication, in this case through some indication as to whether you understand what was said, and if so, do you agree or disagree. I had the somewhat the same reaction Scott did. Your questions seemed somewhat in the Socratic mode as if to point out problems or difficulties. There's nothing wrong with that approach, of course, but since the questions didn't seem informed by the responses they addressed it could be misinterpreted as indicating your not interested in explanations, and that's how discussion breaks down.I'm not taking sides in the discussion. You're perfectly free to agree or disagree with Scott as you like. I would simply like the discussion to move forward with a clear focus, but this is difficult at this point because Scott has no idea whether you understood his explanation, and if you did, whether you agree or disagree. Without this information he has no idea whether he should explain again from scratch perhaps using other words or examples, of if he simply needs to clarify a little, or if he should move on to the next point, or whether your questions were intended as some form of rebuttal.

For example, I have posted here on more than one occasion (I think) a citation for a paper in which some experimentation had been done in mice on their HOX 11 gene, which is involved in development. Introducing mutations in the gene caused, as one might expect, deformities in the mouse pups. However, when the invesigators added a second, non-mutated copy of the gene, not only were the defects 'corrected', but phenotypic changes were introduced. If I recall, these included some extra vertebrae and longer limbs.
In this example alone, we see a demonstration of the fallacy of the language analogy. Writing a sentence twice will not change its meaning, at best just the emphasis (as has 'explained' to me by a creationist "information hawk"). However, duplicating a gene can definitely have significant phenotypic effects.

Most diseases are related in some way to our genes. The information contained in our genes is so critical that simple changes can lead to a severe inherited disease, make us more inclined to develop a chronic disease, or make us more vulnerable to an infectious disease.Scientists currently believe that single gene mutations cause approximately 6,000 inherited diseases. These diseases are called single gene or monogenic diseases because a change in only one gene causes the disease.

S:How does evolutionary thinking explain such control mechanisms?, ie. how they evolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.

Now throw out your Gitt book....

"Give me a hug""Give me a mug"

SLPx:I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.

TABLE I
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTSDISCIPLINE - SCIENTISTANTISEPTIC SURGERY - JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS - JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS - HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY - JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY - BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY - JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY - RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS - JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY - NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY - GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)TABLE II
NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTSCONTRIBUTION - SCIENTISTABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
BAROMETER - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE - CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM - CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR - MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR - JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER - JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG - JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)
INERT GASES - WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE - DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP - HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD - FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION - JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH SAMUEL - F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE - AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE - LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION - LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

Evidence of evolution, for instance, fossils in the geologic column, or classification systems for living organisms, or genetic relationship trees, etc.

But, the evidence we have so far indicates that all living things have arrived at their current forms through the process of evolution, ie, mutation and selection, because these are the only naturalistic processes we know that produce new species...

..., and to this point in time no one has ever come across a scientific problem that indicates non-natural means must be considered.

So, if one is doing science then one has no choice but to project what we know onto the question.

Hence, when you ask your question, the only scientific answer possible is that the evolution of genetic control mechanisms took place through the same process as all other evolution, ie, mutation and selection.

So now I think it's time to throw the question back to you. In light of all I've just explained, when Scott says he doesn't know how genetic control mechanisms might have evolved, but that it probably had something to do with mutation and selection, does it still make sense to you to assume that, even if science has no good answers, that this represents a thorny problem calling into question not only all of biology, whose modern form is based upon evolution, but even all of science, which is based upon the assumption of naturalistic causes?

As has become obvious, Sonnike is not up to any sort of dialogue.
He does not want to learn.

I think my rant was right on - he is just searching for that crack to slime his way throough - to find justification for his flimsy anti-science beliefs.

And now he has found an excuse to 'go away' and conclude - laughably erroneously - that there is some big problem in evolution because I cannot answer one of his tangential questions (ignoring, of course, the fact that he has ignored nearly everything I had presented thus far).

He's Freddy Williams without the bad haircut.

Gene duplication occurs

"There are insurmountable problems with this scenario:The extra gene has to be inactivated; otherwise it could upset the functionality of the organism while it supposedly evolved. Duplicated genes cause dose effects, especially in animals, that are detrimentaltrisomy 21 (an extra chromosome 21) causes Down’s Syndrome in people, for example. You cannot just, willy-nilly, duplicate genes.The duplicated gene has to be located where it does not interfere with the functionality of existing gene groups. If you duplicated a gene next to the existing one and the existing one comprised part of an operon, it would disrupt the functioning of the operon and mess up the biochemical pathway involved (an operon is a group of genes whose products operate together and which is controlled as a unit).Mutations are not going to occur just in the duplicated gene; they are going to occur in the whole genome, so all the deleterious mutations have to be eliminated from the population. This incurs a cost, which slows any theoretical evolution to a snail’s pace and means there is just not enough time, even with the supposed billions of years, for evolution to achieve anything significant. For a brief discussion of this, see Population Genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution.The duplicated gene, once it is capable of doing something useful, has to be reactivated so that it will produce a protein, for example. This scenario assumes Kimura’s ‘neutral theory’ of evolution, but there is no way that a gene can evolve a new function while it is not being expressed, because the chance of arriving at a new useful sequence ‘blind’ is worse than finding one atom in the whole universe by chance. Richard Dawkins realized that such is impossible, so he stuck to the standard neo-Darwinian story of step-wise mutations in an expressed gene (so natural selection can supposedly weed out the countless bad sequences). However, in this scenario every mutational step towards a new function has to be adding functionality, which is completely unrealistic. Furthermore, none of the products along the way can interfere with the existing cell functions, which is again unrealistic (note, for starters, the gene dosage point above).You also need control mechanisms to make sure the right amount of the protein is produced (out-of-control production would not usually be a good idea).Proteins must fold into their correct 3-dimensional shape to work and other proteins called chaperones, which have their own genes, assist in doing this. A new protein/enzyme may need new chaperones, which will have to evolve in parallel with the evolving duplicated gene (another duplication? Where? How will it get expressed at the same time?).And this does not exhaust the list of unlikely events. We have not even considered the additional complications of traits that are produced by more than one gene (one duplicated gene won’t do the job alone) and pleiotropy, where a gene affects more than one trait, which can confound the capacity for natural selection to increase the frequency of the new gene. As we learn more of the details of growth and development, the list of problems for the gene duplication idea will undoubtedly grow. The gene duplication idea as a source of new genetic information just does not look at all feasibleit’s the stuff of more story telling, not hard (experimental) science."

Mutation occurs

1 and 2 can get passed on to progeny

Gene duplications can produce:new genes via subsequent mutation

"The critical point, however, is that the duplicated gene is simply a copy of the old one, with the same properties as the old one--it does not acquire sophisticated new properties simply by being duplicated. In order to understand how the present day system got here, a scientist has to explain how the duplicated genes acquired their new, sophisticated properties."

changes in phenotype without the generation of 'new
information' (using creationist definitions)

Because of 4b, the creationist argument that evolution requires "new information", that such information cannot arise naturally, and therefore evolution cannot happen, is falsified.

The creationist argument outlined in 5. is further refuted by the fact that it was demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that mutation plus natural selection alone can and does provide new genetic information to the gene pool.

The creationist focuses on minutiae and tangential topics to avoid addressing 1-6.

Comments welcome.

Let me explain again.You ask many questions and seem completely uninterested in the answers.

You seem engaged more in a search for the rotten core of evolution than in understanding it. It's like you're going through a barrel picking up one after another ripened apple and saying, "No, that one's not rotten," then tossing it aside without savoring it or even giving it any consideration.

In other words, you seem uninterested in good information, you're only looking for the bad stuff.

For instance, you jumped on Scott's not knowing something like it was the fatal weakness of evolution when science couldn't make any progress if there weren't tons that we didn't know, both as individuals and as a community.

You seem hyper-skeptical about everything without any reason or justification, for instance, gene duplication. Scott, an evolutionist, gave you loads of information and you didn't accept any of it. Peter Borger, a creationist, also told you it happens. Why don't you ask Peter Borger the same questions you were asking Scott?

If you're really interested in the details that you keep asking about then try to make it appear that you're interested in and understand the answers. And if you're not interested then stop wasting people's time. There are many evolutionists here who are glad to explain evolution to those seeking to understand it, but that doesn't seem your goal.

If that's not actually the case then perhaps you could try to make it seem less like you're on a witch hunt. There's nothing wrong with not accepting evolution, or with being very skeptical about evolution, but at least be honest when you ask the question about why you're asking it.

It always seems that way because of the nature of the Creationist position. Creationism is divided into a multiplicity of viewpoints, while there is only one theory of evolution.

Since all evolutionists share essentially the same view, they can all argue the same point. Creationists, on the other hand, can rarely provide support for each other because they all have different views.

Finially, I am not trying to pick on Sonnike. I had long forgotten that I had made comments to him before. Actually, getting some special attention from me (admin mode) may be a compliment. I think, to some degree, I give extra attention to people I like, and ignore the ones I don't like.

I do not trash all of them but I DO trash anything from the ICR as I have repeatedly exposed two of the principles (Gish and Morris) for their dishonesty and blatent lies. The same holds true from people such as Hovind and his group, anyone who has to lie about their academic credentials deserves only scorn.