Where is the evidence for evolution?

quote:

---

quote:

---

SLP:
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.

---

​

Let me give this a shot. An allele is a copy of a gene with a slight variation in the DNA sequence. Genes code for proteins which have stuctural, functional and regulatory roles in our bodies.
You are saying that alleles can cause significant phenotypic changes in an organism, and that is why it is different than two almost identical sentences. Okay so far?

---

I think so...

quote:

---

However, copy errors in sentences could have significant effects depending on the message in the sentence (ie. changing "hug" to "mug"). Furthermore, according to this link
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/...s/bodypatterns/mutation.cfm
it was a "downward" change due to the mutated gene (ie. loss of function), not longer limbs as you said (also no mention of vertebrae).

---

Duplication of the Hoxd11 gene causes alterations in the axial and appendicular skeleton of the mouse.

​

: Boulet AM, Capecchi MR.

​

: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5331, USA.

​

: The Hox genes encode a group of transcription factors essential for proper development of the mouse. Targeted mutation of the Hoxd11 gene causes reduced male fertility, vertebral transformation, carpal bone fusions, and reductions in digit length. A duplication of the Hoxd11 gene was created with the expectation that the consequences of restricted overexpression in the appropriate cells would provide further insight into the function of the Hoxd11 gene product. Genetic assays demonstrated that two tandem copies of Hoxd11 were functionally indistinguishable from the normal two copies of the gene on separate chromosomes with respect to formation of the axial and appendicular skeleton. Extra copies of Hoxd11 caused an increase in the lengths of some bones of the forelimb autopod and a decrease in the number of lumbar vertebrae... "Give me a hug""Give me a mug""Make a limb this long""Mak a limb that long"The two are not really directly analogous."Give me a hug""Give me a hug" = the guy really wants a hugHOX11D = x-number of vertebrae, limb length YHOX11D HOX11D = x-n number of vertebrae, limb length Y+nNot analogous, either.As I said, the language analogy is good fopr getting basic points across, not very good as describing events related to complex gene action/evolution.

quote:

---

Also according to this: http://genetics.gsk.com/link.htm, 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.

​

Now, you were also talking about a directed experiment and not a naturally occurring event, correct?

---

And this questionis leading where?Yes, it was a "directed" experiment - how else are experiments to be done?
However, gene duplications happen all by themselves. LOTS of them. In fact, huge blocks of the human genome are the result of large scale duplications.

quote:

---

In conclusion, I think that the language analogy seems still relevant (as apparantly did Percy), and it also appears that mutations causing alleles are either harmful or neutral.

---

Percy agrees, it seems to me, with me on the analogy issue.It appeas that the mutations we can characterize are either neutral of harmful.This is the question I have asked many a creationist - how do we find beneficial mutations?It is easy (relatively speaking) to find the genetic componant of disease. But how do we find the genetic componant behind, say, not getting a disease? (actually, this has been done - a mutation in a cell surface receptor allowed many to avoid plague in the 1600s, and that allele now confers similar health benefits to the descendants of those with the allele; also, similar mutations confer immunity to HIV infection).
The evidence that gene duplications etc. can and do cause phenotypic change is there. That a human is not born with wings or some such nonsense is not evidence that beneficial mutations do not occur.I will grant you this - at least you are getting some non-biased information for a change. That is a good start.Now throw out your Gitt book....

quote:

---

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.

​

In other words, this is pure faith in the hopeful powers of mutation and natural selection. I appreciate your honesty, but it really leaves me asking why don't you want to know for sure.

---

Pardon my frankness, but it is this kind of bullshit response that formulates my negative impressions of creationists.The objective reader will notice that I wrote the word personally. That means that I, SLP, PERSONALLY do not have that information handy to disseminate.It does not mean that there is no answer at all or never will be, nor does it mean that I don't "want" to know the answer, it just means that I do not PERSONALLY have that information.Let me explain something to you, Sonnike:Despite the fact that the creationist propagandists at AIG and such will write about any and every topic under the sun and present themselves as being 'experts' therein, any field of science is prohibitively large and broad to allow any one person to be 'expert' or even knowledgible in all areas, even those closely related to their true area of expertise.The question you are asking is a theoretical one - you asked for how "evolutionary thinking" explains it. You said nothing about "evidence". You said nothing about "proof." You said "thinking." I am not involved in that line of "thinking." And so, being much more honest than the ReMine's and Sarfati's of the world, I simply say that I PERSONALLY do not know, and then I give my assumption - my 'thinking.'Then, as a good little creationist is wont to do, you try to turn it into some idiotic "look - you just take it on FAITH blah blah blah" BS.How is it again that I am supposed to respond to you when you pull this sort of crap every other message? With "respect"?

quote:

---

Is this something science is basically silent on?

---

See above

quote:

---

Evo's are always challenging creationists to provide solid evidence and proof. It's becoming apparant that there is a lot more "faith" in the "scientific" community about certain things, than is openly admitted to. Am I correct?

---

You are quite wrong.Again, that I or some specific individual does not have a ready-made answer to any and every question that some creationist can come up with is hardly indicative of the status of an entire scientific field. To imply as much is indictive not of someone trying to learn, but of someone trying to validate their own preconceived notions - of someone more interested in proselytizing and propagandizing than learning.

quote:

---

You didn't really respond to my latest posting, from last night, did you see it?

---

Are you kidding me?Shall I go back through this thread alone and ask you why you did not respond to all of the points that I brought up?I can guarantee that my list would be about an order of magnitude longer than yours...

quote:

---

Also, I'm thankful were getting along better too. I'm honestly not out to make anyone look stupid. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions, and obviously the answers aren't known yet.

---

Maybe you spoke too soon.I am willing to keep this civil, but this conclusion jumping and ammo-searching needs to stop.AGAIN, that I PERSONALLY do not have an answer to your every question cannot by any stretch of the imagination be construed to mean that there is some "crisis" in evolution or that all evolutionists just take everything on "faith."I am not a pharmacologist, but I still take penicillin if I have strep throat. Does that mean that I am just taking it on faith?That if I - or more analogous, the pharmacist - cannot explicitly and immediately explain exactly how this penicillin will help me fight off the streptococci in my throat that the whole pharmaceutical industry is premised on nothing more than faith?Come on, Son....

quote:

---

Son:

​

"hug her"
"mug her"
entirely different and not easily deduced. Right?

---

Give me a biological example of what you are getting at and I will try to address your question, bert.

I can't seem to answer each and every one of sonnike the creationists questions - we all know what that means.EVOLUTION IS JUST A BELIEF!It is taken on Faith alone!It is a dead paradigm!It is intended to do away with religion!Didn't you guys get the memo?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.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-28-2003]

quote:

---

Admin:
Please, Scott, I know I'm responsible for prodding you to be more patient and forthcoming and that subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.

---

I will try.

quote:

---

By the way, about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of your email, yes, Moose mentioned to me the email you sent him, but I actually had in mind a parody of the email you sent me last year after your first suspension.

---

Well, I felt the same way then, too. And I don't believe I used the phrase "two-bit" then, either.

quote:

---

It wasn't intended to be accurate or anything, hence the smiley, I apologize if I stepped over a line. I was just trying to point out to Sonnikke that during your time here we've been more at loggerheads than anything else, and that charging us with complicity made no sense.

---

What line?My goodness, some folks are so serious.

Admin:
... subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.Boy, it sure is rough being right so often....

I always get a kick out of such lists, as they are at best red herrings and are, with little doubt, quite completely irrelevent as to the validity of creationism as a scientific field.Of that hallowed list, how many of the 'fields of science' or scientific contributions were the result of the 'creation scientist's' reliance upon a literal interpretation of the bible?Did the 'inventor' of gynecology, for example, use the bible as his anatomy/physiology text? Did a literal reading of Genesis (or would it be Ruth?) inspire the discovery of the vagina?As for the Admin's comment on content-free posts, I think it clear that I have been trying to get some content from Sonnike in order to move on. As my initial intuition has largely been shown to be correct, that Sonnike was merely out to find a 'chink in the armor' to seize upon, I would hope that the greatest change in post content be from Sonnike.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

If that's "obvious" to you, I wonder how "obvious" scientific discoveries are to you.

---

I can find no meaning in that sentence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Now you are just acting like a kindergarten bully who is bragging to his buddies about un-truths that makes himself feel good and important.

---

How interesting - I am a 'bully' because my initial assumptions were correct and I spell it out? Hmmm... 'Untruths'? Are you saying that I am wrong? If I am wrong, I find it odd that you have failed utterly to respond substantively to anything I have written. Indeed, what replies you have written have been simply more questions or nitpicking, in addition to ignoring large segments of posts.
I don't need to point out such tactics of creationists to feel 'good' and 'important.'
Indeed, I feel a bit sad and disgusted.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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).

---

I'm glad you are not a psychologist.

---

How would you be able to tell?I am still willing to carry on a dialogue, but it will be a complete waste of time and space and an utter exposure of the vacuousness of the creationist position if you intend to continue as you have done so far.

1. Gene duplication occurs
2. Mutation occurs
3. 1 and 2 can get passed on to progeny
4. Gene duplications can produce:
   1. new genes via subsequent mutation
   2. changes in phenotype without the generation of 'new
      information' (using creationist definitions)
5. Because of 4b, the creationist argument that evolution requires "new information", that such information cannot arise naturally, and therefore evolution cannot happen, is falsified.
6. 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.
7. The creationist focuses on minutiae and tangential topics to avoid addressing 1-6.

Comments welcome.[Hope formatting is also welcome. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 03-04-2003]

quote:

---

Peter:
You said ::
'You immediately have redundancy and the duplication soon
decays.'

​

Which was the part I was objecting to. But since you agree
that duplication can have phenotypic consequences (so it isn't
a redundancy) then I guess I must have mis-understood your intent
there.

---

Indeed, Borger's comments are off base. It seems that, like "non-random", Borger's definition of 'redundancy' is at odds with those in the field. I have cited a couple of times now a paper that experimentally duplicates a HOX gene. the result is not mere redundancy, the result is an alteration of phenotype.Gene action, it seems, escapes nearly all anti-evolutionists.As for my 'work load' and discussions thereof, though it is, frankly, nobody's business, is just as large as anyone elses. I do, however, have the flexibility to work - when I am not in class - when and where I want to, and so I often work at home or late in the evenings (frequent insomnia). Because of my work habits - I tend to work all the way through a project all at once - I find it difficult to concentrate on larger projects in small bits - such as between classes or during office hours - and so tend to waste such time perusing the internet. I must say, however, that I do not put as much time into posts as some seem to believe. For example, gone are the days that I would take the time to write up well-developed, proof-read, referenced, lengthy posts. Such things DID take up way too much time, and it was usually for naught - the person I replied to typically ignored most of it or blew it off, or the 'moderators' took offense to some other post of mine and deleted the whole thing.I don't think that would happen here, but still I do not have the time - nor the desire - to engage in such 'debate' anymore. I do, after all, have a day job...

I don't have time to address this all today - and much I will not need to, as others have done well - but I do have just one short comment.After linking to and cut-and-pasting a section of creationist horticulturist Don Batten's bombastic tripe from AiG, Son writes:

quote:

---

How do you seriously respond to something like that?

---

I have to go into 'arrogant elitist' mode:How is it that you find Batten's article convincing? Why is what he says about the issue 'correct' and what he was responding to - or the explanations given thus far - incorrect?But there is more to your question than I would suppose you intended. Indeed, you sort of answer your own question."How do you seriously respond to something like that?"I think my new emphasis tells you what I think of Batten's diatribe.You see, I have read batten's stuff before. I know that he, being a professional creationist propagandist, is far more interested in planting 'seeds of doubt' in the minds of lay creationists than he is about being caught in lies and deceptions.I will dissect Batten's claptrap later, but I see errors from the very first quoted sentence on."The extra gene has to be inactivated; otherwise it could upset the functionality of the organism while it supposedly evolved..."This is false. Batten should know this. But I do not expect anything more from the likes of those at AiG.

quote:

---

PB:
The scenario that duplication is followed by divergence and adoptation of new functions is nothing but hypothetical.

---

This is clearly and blatantly false. Those conclusions are reached via the simple, straightforward 'tenets' I listed above and by the results of genetic analysis.Borger should know how sciene is performed, but when he is discussing his worldview protection scam, he seems to ignore this.

quote:

---

SOn:
Most creationist are bible believing christians, as such they hold to a higher calling, upholding truth at all cost.

---

This is incorrect, Sonnike. If these creationists were so concerned about 'truth', why is it that so many of them have been caught fudging the data or worse -blatently lying?[/quote]Evolutionists on the other hand are not accountable to a Higher Being, and thus whether lies or truths come out of their mouths, is irrelevant to them because there is no specified benchmark.[/quote] What bullshit.
Jim Bakker is a creationist too.

quote:

---

Also, morals are a product of mindless evolution according to them. Now how is it that I'm supposed to believe an evolved microbe, over a designed human who serves his God?

---

In other words, you will believe anything a creationist says over anything an evolutionist says - whether or not you can even understand the issues, whether or not the creationist has been shown to be in eror.Man, my intuition keep sgetting reinforced on a near daily basis...I am on spring break next week, so I will have some time (when I am not enjoying myself) to refuter batten's propaganda.though ti seems that, at least as far as Sonnike goes, such will be an utter waste of time.

The whole thing is a nice smoke screen so you can avoid dealing with the flaws of evolutionism.Why don't you tell us all about these flaws that you know of. Please explain them to us.

I'm sorry Borger - I am going to confine my exchanges with you to one topic at a time. Your evasion/antagonism game succeeded in getting the book nook thread closed, but the information you requested repeatedly - indicating that you had not, in fact, read any of 'my stuff' - was provided.Ad hoc unsupported gibberish works on creationists. It doesn't seem to have the desired effect on anyone else.Back up your claims re: Cap and Tob or take a hike.