Summations Only

Based on your description, the distinction between adaptation and evolution seems to be that you like using the word adaptation. Why don't you articulate why a change caused by mutation, and propagated in a population by selection is not evolution?You 'admit' that E. coli could only poorly use citrate, and acknowledge that the 'adapted' bacteria, which have been demonstrated to be physically different from the original E. coli can fully utilize citrate. You even acknowledge that the source of the changes for the 'adaption' is mutation. We expect that the 'same mechanism' would produce the same results, so when you talk about 'refining the process' all you are really doing is talking nonsense with your fingers in your ears.Using your definition of adaptation, a land mammal can become 'adapted' to living in the ocean, but despite the development of changes that allow it to swim more efficiently and to hold its breath under water longer, you'll claim that the land mammal could already swim and hold its breath so no evidence of evolution has been produced.Given your word usage, I'm perfectly willing to accept that humans and chimpanzees adapted from a common ancestor.What's a species of a bacteria anyway?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Describe that barrier.

Do you have an argument not bases on skepticism? You are correct that no one has ever personally witnessed an animal become a new 'kind'. Is that the extent of your argument; that you will only believe evolution is correct when a time machine is produced?

Exactly. I came to the same conclusion when I posed my example of a land mammal becoming "adapted" to the sea. Zaius137's response was simply that such adaptation had never happened.Is intelligence novel? Well, chimpanzees have some level of intelligence, so nothing novel about mere changes in processes that provide man's intelligence and thus there is no barrier to chimpanzees and men having had a common ancestor. Wait, says the creationist, that never happened, so if necessary I will concede that change to be novel. In fact I insist on it.From a different message:

quote:

---

"It wasn’t a typical mutation at all, where just one base-pair, one letter, in the genome is changed, he said. Instead, part of the genome was copied so that two chunks of DNA were stitched together in a new way. One chunk encoded a protein to get citrate into the cell, and the other chunk caused that protein to be expressed."

---

Yes. That would constitute novelty under any reasonable definition. It is sufficient that novelty apply to changes in the genome that would provide support the theory of evolution from a common ancestor. If none of those changes meet the zaius137 definition, of what relevance is that?Zaius has defined novelty and 'new information in the genome' in such a way as to make any directly observed evidence for those things impossible. I am sure that even Zaius would agree that the evolution of a primate from the common ancestor of all life involves novelty, but he would require direct observation, and not the evidence that we do have, before he would consider any such thing.His second strategy is to insist that we may not consider the time involved. He calls this magic. Let me suggest that it is further evidence that Zaius137 arguments should not be taken seriously, unless your goal is to convince zaius137.What is possible is to observe a few cases of novelty that involve small changes under limit periods of observation time (i.e. within a human lifetime). It is only belief, supported by nothing else, and an unwillingness to accept anything except direct observation as evidence, that allows speculating about some barrier to direct novelty. A barrier that is neither directly or indirectly evidenced. But a barrier that for a creationist considering the citrate experiment, must be there.I would take zaius137's position in this thread as statements of what would be required for zaius137 to be convinced that the theory evolution had a scientific basis. But even those things would not convince him that the theory of evolution is correct. No evidence can do that.

I'm sure this is true. Plenty of people misunderstand the theory of evolution. I don't purport to understand the theory of evolution on the level that an undergraduate in biology would, and certainly not on the level of a scientist. That said, there are of course situations where we do identify a complex organism as having evolved from a less complex organism, but the theory of evolution is based on changes in species that result in fitness rather than complexity.I don't feel any motivation to defend any misconceptions an 'evolutionist' might have or that an creationist might have of what the theory of evolution actually state. That would be folly.Those misconceptions are one reason I find the term 'evolutonist' to both silly and derogatory. The term is used to cover inane beliefs that creationists think I hold, which I actually do not hold.

I did not claim that I had proven anything. I said "of course" we do identify cases where evolution results in increased complexity, but that the theory of evolution did not require increased complexity.My statement is in response to your statement that 'evolutionists' say that evolution means complexity always increases. In short, I am disagreeing with you only about what the theory of evolution actually says.

Not exactly. Mutations are known to occur in humans. The absence of mutation is at least some evidence that a gene has recently appeared. Having a specific function alone would not make a section of DNA resistant to change. It might mean that such changes would not be selected and would not propagate but only if the mutation does not affect your ability to sire or mother offspring. As has been already presented, you possess mutations that are not a part of your parent's genetic makeup. Everyone does.You also seem to be confusing junk DNA with functioning DNA being able to operate despite modification.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Evolution "believes in"? What rate is that and what are you claiming is the real rate? As I have explained, this is not related to whether mutations occur in existing DNA.

I don't think this is a contradiction. mindspawn might consider the Bible to be supernaturally accurate and therefore not demand evidence for everything in the Bible. While that would not be scientific, it would not be contradictory.

I've been chewing on this, and I think that mindspawn's YEC position is a combination of 'there hasn't been any significant passage of time' and the mutations we discuss would have been selected against because any mutation in functional DNA would be selected against.I think the latter argument has been dealt with effectively despite mindspaw's slowness in recognizing it. As for the significant amount of time, mindspawn relies strictly on his interpretation of the Bible as his reason for rejecting that man has been around for an enormous amount of time. MS absolutely rejects any kind of dating as is a YEC's wont. We aren't going to be able to deal with that portion in this thread.It also appears that for mindspawn, "ID" is synonymous with God did it exactly as Genesis describes. I think we can commend him for not playing hide the frisbee.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A lot of rationalizing about what a designer would do involves trying to understand the designer's thought process. We know that mammals have similarities, but one might ask why there are similar animals. Evolution comes with that explanation built in.Or more specifically, one might ask why a designer would create life so that existing and distinct life forms a phylogenetic tree, particularly if the designer was omnipotent. I think this is a difficult thing for ID to answer, but Creationist simply deny everything that suggests natural reasons for extinctions other than a flood. But with evolution, such a tree is exactly what we would expect. Even more condemning is that Creationist attempts to explain the fossil record all border on the absolute ridiculous even after we reject dating. What do you know about entropy in general?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So how does the current Y chromosome compare to those of our ancestors one million years ago or to that of a lizard? Are you saying that there does not appear to be the correct amount of variation as predicted by the theory of evolution when we look at those things?I don't believe you've shown any such thing. We don't have the DNA for any pre-human, ancestors and I don't think you can make the argument that human Y chromosomes look too much like modern lizard DNA to justify evolutionary thoery.At least it is the case that neither of the quotations from Wikipedia seem to touch on the issue you are raising.

I'll be more direct. What is your baseline for comparison? Show me a Y chromosome from hundreds of millions of years ago, and then let's talk about the differences.