TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

And evidence that they do produce viable new species? (Think nylon bacteria, for example) Wow, so you just admitted that your whole argument is one from personal incredulity. Just becuase you can't imagine it happening without a creator, doesn't mean it actually can't, Peg. 1 in 0.2? So it will happen 5 times? I wouldn't call those impossible odds, to be honest. (yes, you probably didn;t mean it like that, before you explain what you did mean, please also provide the calculation, loose numbers are meaningless) But we have DNA. Since by your own admission, DNA exists, saying that we have to doubt evolution because we need DNA for it, is kinda stupid.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Yes, appearance, meaning it looks like it, but it isn't so... How hard can this be?

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

No he didn't.This is why the statement that you have put in quotes is not an actual quotation.

Do you know what a mutation breeding experiment is, Peg? They take individuals from a genetically homogeneous captively bred population and expose them to radiation to induce mutation and have a gander at what results. There are three things about this you should immediately recognise as being different from natural populations:1. There is no accumulation of mutations
2. Mutation is induced by large radiation dosages
3. The initial population is homogeneousThat these experiments produce an asymptotic number of mutations should be entirely unsurprising to you - there are only so many nucleotides to mutate or places to break a DNA strand (a common cause of mutation in radiation experiments but almost completely irrelevant to evolution). And most breaks to a gene will have the same effect: no functional protein produced so large groups of these point mutations and breaks will produce the same mutation.You'll notice as well that a large number of mutations produce no effect at all, either because they have struck some part of the genome that produces no meaningful change (i.e because it hit an inactive or duplicate gene) or because the mutation does not meaningful change the protein produced (either because it produced a synonym for the same amino acid, or because it altered a part of the protein not critical to function to a similar amino acid).Which brings me on to accumulation of mutation, whereas in a mutation breeding experiment these neutral changes are useless, in evolution they can be quite important. An empirical example of this comes from Richard Lenski's experiments with E. coli where an early neutral mutation was key in allowing a later mutation that enabled citrate metabolism.As a final point regarding mutation breeding, I refer your attention to a point you made: Again, I draw your attention to the point raised in the last couple of pages of this thread that there is not target in evolution. The goals of agribusiness are much more narrow and more defined than the range of potentially beneficial mutations for a natural population.(Oh, and as a matter of fact the main reason that mutation breeding is being dropped from agriculture is not that it doesn't work: it does, as any wheat field you've ever walked through attests but because considerably more powerful methods are now available)On to your second point: One in 20/100? That's 1 in 0.2, or 5 times certainty! Wow! I never knew they were so probable! Snark aside, how is the "chance" of forming a histone remotely relavant to anything? Histones were not formed by chance, they evolved. Even the simplest histone forms found in Eukarya probably took a billion years to evolve, and the complex forms found in our nuclear DNA took longer still. The much simpler (but homologous) histones of Archaea doubtless took less time to emerge.And bacteria, of course, manage just fine with not a single histone to their name as does the mitochondrial DNA found in every cell of your body. Histones are not needed for DNA function, and thus certainly not needed for life.

are they still mosquitos? c'mon, the cells are still the same cells they always were. And i read thru that whole article and the only mention of evolution was right in the last paragraph

quote:

---

Or, has her DNA evolved into a new entityHelacyton gartleri has been suggested44after countless cell culture passages, viral infections, and other cell line contaminants? Although the question of whether or not such a new species has evolved in the cell cultures of laboratories around the world is difficult to answer

---

So what has it got to do with evolution? The cancer cells are still cancer cells. And its no miracle that they are still alive today considering scientists have been breeding them!! how is that evolution?

Just to reply specifically to your comment: A black widow is a spider, yes? A tarantula is a spider, yes? If they are both spiders, are they different species?Sure two different species of mosquitoes are still mosquitoes. The point is that speciation has occurred. A mosquito population isn't going to speciate into a population of bears or alligators. A mosquito population of one species will eventually become another species of mosquitoes given time and isolation and that's what was shown. You asking whether or not it is still a mosquito is either disingenuous on your part because you are unwilling to consider the evidence or lack of understanding because you are ignorant of what a species is.If you disagree with the evidence provided, discuss the merits of the evidence. Asking a question like that does nothing for the debate.Hint: You could ask questions like -
1) How do we know it isn't a previously unidentified species of mosquitoes that moved into the London Underground?
2) In what ways is it a new species and not a variation of the original species?Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

yeah i might be stupid in the eyes of someone who believes in evolutionbut that is not the issue of this thread...the reasons for doubt arethat said, there are many reasons to doubt evolution and those doubts dont only come from people like me who believe in creation...they come from the mouths of the evolutionists themselves...the only difference is they ignore them whereas others do not.I dont get my quotes from creationist websites btw...i use my own reference book entitled 'Life-How did it get here? By evolution or creation' published by the WT org. I dont think its avail online but if you want one you could send them an email and they'll send you one for free.

But, as we have noted, this is not actually true. Ah, I see. Not a creationist website, a creationist pamphlet.

no, for the reason that they are both spiders. the are different 'types' of spider.I would say different species would be a fly and a spider...they are different species. the variety within a species is very great...we see that in the selective breeding of domestic animals. Today there are many different types of dog, yet they are still from the one species. Some types/breeds cannot breed with other types becasue they are too different. an example might be a Chawaa and a doberman....size makes it impossible for them to mate.But this thread is about Darwinian evolution and the theory that all life evolved from the simplest forms of life, into the great variety we see including man.thats what this thread is about.

Perhaps. This however has nothing to do with my position. You argued that one of the reasons one could cite for doubting evolution, was the lack of genetic material, when, only one or two sentences before, you talk about that very genetic material. So, when we have genetic material, citing the lack of it as a doubt for evolution is completely nonsensical, whether you're a creationist or not. Yes, and this is not one of these reasons. In fact it could be argued from your "logic" that evolution can't be doubted, as we have the genetic material for it. Yes, yes they do. I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in a creator and that has studied evolution, that doubts evolution. We ignore ourselves? Would you be so kind as to explain how that is possible? Also, could you give some examples of people who don't believe in a creator, are biologists, and doubt evolution? And this better be more than one or two examples as well, since there are hundreds of thousands taht don't doubt evolution, and some of them even believe in a creator. That's just as bad as creationist sites then. And probably filled with the same rubbish as the quotes are anything to go by.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

No, its not a pampletits a 251 page hard cover with over 200 cited references in it bibliographywell researched and well written is what it is.

please provide the msg where i stated this and i'll have a look at it again...it doesnt sound like what i said at all.

No, it's not, it's dishonest, misleading rubbish. You can find a critique here if you wish; it's pretty damning.But that's rather an aside. To me, posts like yours are the real sadness of Creationism, it's not just that you're wrong it's the time and effort you and people like you are putting into reading the wrong sources. Rather than studying real science, and real biology, you're lapping up lies and misinformation. That's really sad.There's a world of books on biology out there, catering to all levels of knowledge. If you put half the effort into studying them you do into absorbing this bullshit you'd have learnt so much about the world. Instead you're rattling around inside an echo chamber of misinformation.I think that's tragic.

Gladly.It's about your Message 194 where you first talk about DNA: (You also have that weird statistic of 1 in 0.2 there, meaning a certainty of 5 will happen)Then you say this: But there is genetic material, as you yourself have said.Like I said, completely illogical.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Sorry Mr Jack.Put it down to the fact that it's a bit cumbersome trying to express unwieldy fractions. It's supposed to be read as:"Four to the thousandth power, minus one, divided by four to the thousandth power". So that's a really huge number, minus one, over the same really huge number.