why DID we evolve into humans?

Rabair, It was, over 50 years ago, & many times since.The Legerbergs made a clonal population of E.Coli, which they plated many times. They then plated the bacteria onto a penicillin infused substrate. Given that the bacteria were clonal, they should all have died. But isolated colonies flourished, indicating that a mutation had occurred in the intervening generations between the original individual bacteria & the colonies subjected to penicillin. This mutation was by definition beneficial.Lederberg, J., and Lederberg, E. M. (1952) "Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants." Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406.I do find it amazing that creationists still think there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation when such a thing was shown to occur over 50 years ago. What's that if it isn't new information?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, That depends on how you define information, doesn't it? If you define information in such a way as it can't arise without intelligent input, then you can't stand there & tell me DNA possesses information! DNA, very simply put, expresses phenotypes. How do you know that this was designed by an intelligence, in order to claim it is informative? After all, that random mutation can introduce new beneficial phenotypes isn't in doubt (I just gave you one of many examples). What makes you so sure that the rest of our phenotype wasn't introduced in the same way? It wouldn't involve information at all, according to you. In fact, you could go from a single amino acid to an oak tree in this way, & not have any information added! Ergo, DNA doesn't contain information if it arose via RM&NS, but does if it was designed. This is equivocation of the most dishonest kind.I have shown you how phenotypes change beneficially by random mutation, so it seems to me that the structure & function expressed by DNA can be changed, improved, & added to by mutation. If you wish to claim that this isn't new information, go for it, I'm not bothered one iota. All evolution requires is that genotypes & phenotypes are able to change for the better. They do. Whether there is a bunch of people who insist that this isn't new information is utterly irrelevant to evolutionary theory. False, it implies that the new genotype arose randomly before the penicillin was encountered, hence only a few individuals containing that mutation survive, the rest die. Only the individuals with the new genotype survive. Random mutation & natural selection in action. Can you believe there are creationists who deny the fact of natural selection?!Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, Yes it did. It is insufficient for you to simply wave away evidence without explanation.The Lederbergs showed that penicillin resistance was acquired by one or a few members of a clonal population at some point after the reproduction of the first cell. The trait can be inherited, is therefore genetic in nature, & therefore was the result of a mutation. New function was therefore created by mutation. QED. "Come on" what? This is what occurred. You think it that unlikely that in a population numbering in the billions, one or more individuals got lucky enough to have a mutation that conferred penicillin resistance?If you think you have a better supported explanation, then I’m all ears, but until then your incredulity counts for nought. The FACT is that a single individual that was not penicillin resistant gave rise to a population in which one or a few were. Like I say, the trait can be inherited, is therefore genetic in nature, & therefore was the result of mutation. Bad thing that billions died because they weren’t resistant. I’m not sure what you hope to achieve with this line of argument, were it a directed mutation, it certainly wasn’t very effective at saving the population, since 99.99% recurring of the population croaked. What leads you to believe it was anything but a random mutation that pre-existed the environment? But new function arose from a condition where it never existed before. Penicillin resistance arose from no penicillin resistance. I’ll say it again, the study PROVED, to use your own lagnguage, that penicillin resistance was gained where it never previously existed.That you don’t accept it is apparent, that you justifiably don’t accept it, is less so. And yet it happened anyway. The likelihood of it’s occurrence is 1. That is very likely indeed, I think you’ll agree. No, that would be moving the goalposts. I think we’ll stick to this one example & see if you can justifiably deny that penicillin resistance arose from non-penicillin resistance. But penicillin resistance arose from non-penicillin resistance. It seems a bit churlish to claim something is impossible, when the evidence that it had has been available for fifty years. But it did, rabair, it did. Despite your junkyard analogy, despite your protestations to the contrary. Sticking your fingers in your ears & going LALALALALALA will not help your case. You can make as many analogies as you like, protest as much as you like, make as many baseless assertions as you like, there is solid evidence that contradicts you, & it is infinately superior.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, A phenotype that never previously existed was added. A function that never previously existed was added. The E.coli lost nothing, & gained something, geddit?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, Or maybe there was a gene duplication & it has two functional proteins instead of one. Does that meet your requirement for something to be added?Since your argument all along was a claim sans evidence that it is impossible for new information/new function/whatever-metric-you-choose-to-retreat-to, all I am required to do at this stage is show that it hypothetically can. So, why can't the mutation have occurred after a sequence was duplicated? We know such mutations occur, we know beneficial mutations occur, put the two together & you have what you say can't happen, something was added, & nothing was lost. Stay focussed, the Lederbergs study revolved around penicillin resitance, not nylon digestion. You never began, rabair, you made unsupported claims that nothing can be added without loss. Mutations can occur that make it possible, see above.Please don't tell me I haven't provided evidence of the above occurrence, all I have to so to destroy your non-empirical argument is provide empirical evidence that makes it possible. Allow me to spell it out for you, a mutation occurred in a region of Africa that introduced an extra protein without losing the old one (HbA). The HbC haemaglobin confers a strong resistance to malaria. What you said couldn't occur, did.One last thing, there is a reply button at the bottom of each post. Please use it, it makes tracking of posts much easier.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, Here: What did that mean if you aren't claiming nothing can be added without loss, ie no net gain? It is implicit to your argument that if there is a beneficial mutation without some sequence/function loss, there would be a net gain, right? You say this is impossible, therefore, "nothing can be added without loss", meaning "no net gain" would be a fair paraphrase of your argument if you are accepting beneficial mutations occur. If you accept beneficial mutations exist, & are claiming there is no loss, then there is therefore a net beneficial gain, & you've hamstrung yourself.But whilst were on the subject, if you'd talk about the same thing from one post to the other it would be easier to pin down what you're talking about, & paraphrasing would be unnecessary. First it's beneficial mutations & information, then it's something from nothing, then it's nothing has been added, & now it's "gain"?Will the real rabair claim please stand up!I'll say it again. It was you that claimed that, ("gain" is it now?) gain is impossible, I have shown you it is possible because gene duplications occur, & so do beneficial mutations.Your original claim was: So, a gene duplication followed by a beneficial mutation meets your criteria for "gain", doesn't it? Something has been added without something being taken away, meaning a net gain, right?For example, if humans have an HbA gene, mutations occur, & there is now an HbA, AND an HbC gene, how is that not a gain, how has nothing been added?You claimed, without any empirical support whatsoever, that information/beneficial mutation/nothing can be added/gain (delete as applicable), is impossible. I have shown it to be possible.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, Perhaps people wouldn't get confused about who is being replied to if you had the common decency to reply to one person per post, you could also try using paragraphs.Mark

rabair, Stop being a prat, rabair. You changed your terms with almost every post, as detailed in my last but one post, I can hardly be lying, can I? If you are being misrepresented then you only have yourself to blame. I agree, but all evolution requires is that things are added naturally to something that is already present. You appear to be constructing some sort of straw man. Who told you that evolution didn't work this way?I've seen some creationist equivocation in my time, but now I think it's time you defined "added", & "gained" (only relatively can you say nothing was gained, & even then you have insert he word "net"), because I have provided a plausible scenario where, under normal usage of the words, something was added, & was gained. Getting a new stretch of DNA without losing any, & that stretch of DNA having new beneficial function sure sounds like something was "added" to me. It also sounds like something was "gained". I can only assume that you have a very different meaning of these words compared to the rest of us. It is when there is no loss elsewhere. Strictly speaking, not using your own personal definition of added or gained, a beneficial mutation HAS been added, a beneficial mutation HAS been gained, because the sequence is a duplicate & the original is unaffected. And in making this argument you have completely ignored my example. You are saying gain is impossible, I provided an example where it was possible.If new sequences can be added, & non lost, & new function can be added without loss, then there is a net gain. I, nor evolutionary theory could care less over your equivocation of "nothing", "nowhere", "added", or "gained". All I have to show is that genomes can display a net increase in function, & you have nowhere to go.So,Condition A/ A particular DNA sequence had one function, Y.Event 1/ The DNA sequence is duplicated, into sequences A & B.Event 2/ Sequence B mutated giving it a beneficial mutation & new function, Z, sequence A is unaffected.Condition B/ A particular DNA sequence labelled A & B has 2 functions, Y & Z.Even though sequence B lost function Y & gained function Z, the genome as a whole GAINED function between conditions A & B.Please tell me how nothing was added between condition A & B, please tell me how nothing was gained.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-10-2003]

rabair,An artists impression of Acanthostega gunnari.Mark

rabair, No, I haven't avoided your point. Your original point was: You've changed terms from information to other things, but I have provided a plausible scenario where there is a net addition, a net gain, in direct contradiction of your unsupported claim such a thing is impossible.You are moving the goalposts, & I'm not playing your silly diversionary games."So,

​

Condition A/ A particular DNA sequence had one function, Y.

​

Event 1/ The DNA sequence is duplicated, into sequences A & B.

​

Event 2/ Sequence B mutated giving it a beneficial mutation & new function, Z, sequence A is unaffected.

​

Condition B/ A particular DNA sequence labelled A & B has 2 functions, Y & Z.

​

Even though sequence B lost function Y & gained function Z, the genome as a whole GAINED function between conditions A & B.

​

Please tell me how nothing was added between condition A & B, please tell me how nothing was gained."This example goes straight to the heart of the matter, so spare me the smug "baby step" comments & defend your assertion that gain/addition is impossible. But things can be added, see above, what is so hard to understand about a new functional gene appearing without losing the original gene & it's function? So why can I give a plausible (& after all, not a difficult to understand) scenario that shows you to be wrong? Answered in my last post, that's how evolution works. So please deal with the example above that shows by TWO simple changes net gain can be accomplished. I have reliably remained on topic, see a quote from your opening post, above. I have no idea what "on topic" means to you, meandering aimlessly, changing terms when it suits you, whilst refusing to address examples that blow your argument out of the water, perhaps?For your information, you originally claimed that beneficial mutation was impossible, I showed it wasn't, you then threw both arms around your assertion that addition/gain was impossible, so my line of argument CHANGED when you CHANGED the emphasis of your argument, geddit? I then needed to show that net gain can occur via mutation, which is what I did. Your claim that addition/gain cannot occur via mutation has been refuted. Please try to stay on topic, rabair. Someone who plays the dumb card should probably retire from the debate. How can you be so confident that gain cannot occur via mutations when you know jack shit?I have provide a plausible example (& you don't need to understand DNA or genetics, just understand that a gene is a DNA sequence that ultimately expresses a function) that contradicts, & renders possible something that you clam is impossible. What is so hard to understand about the bolded example, above?You lose.It is unbelievable that you have the bare faced arrogance to "baby step" me, yet "play the dumb card" when you are shown to be wrong. Priceless. Absolutely priceless! Function Z. It did not exist in the original condition A. It is therefore "new", or are you equivocating over the use of that word, too? Of course you don't, that would mean dealing with the awful truth that a net gain can occur via mutation. You will of course claim it came from sequence A in the first place, but that's how evolution works, new things apppear out of old ones, & when duplications occur, there are net gains, despite your claims otherwise..Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, Because, Mr Equivocation, a benefitial mutatation that introduces a new function is by definition ADDING something. When that was pointed out to you, you retreated faster than an Italian Infantry Division in WW2. THEN it became "ah, yes, but it is losing something too". Hence you implicitly are using a net gain usage. THAT IS WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION, IF YOU WERE NOT USING "NET GAIN", AS OPPOSED TO "ANY GAIN" THEN YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT YOU ORIGINALLY MADE SEVERAL POSTS AGO. AS I have pointed out three times now, I agree, as far as evolution goes, but so what? Do you realise how far you have retreated from your original assertions? The point is, rabair, that you clearly thought from the bolded comments above, that nothing could be added at all, & in fact, there would be a net loss over time, consistent with Hovind's views. It is this argument that I have been seeking to destroy all along, everytime I annihilate one part, you retreat to another, slightly different position, using different terms.I, nor evolutionary theory, could care less about the something from nothing argument. Newer, bigger & better structures are possible via gene duplication & co-option, it doesn't have to be from nothing, nor is it. You don't even have to have abiogenesis from nothing, since the molecules already existed. You mentioned the bee/wasp sting, it is a co-opted female reproductive system, it used pre-existing structures & found something different to do with it. And now maybe you get it, & I'll try to couch it in your terms, evolution doesn't do anything that is brand new. Since everything is reducible to the genetic level, the sequences that are expressed can be copied, added to, changed, there is absolutely no reason why a 3 billion base pair genome cannot increase to 6 bbp, & some of that DNA gain new complex functions. If that's not "brand new" to you, fine & dandy by me, rabair. But you didn't start from nothing, you started with atoms & molecules that weren't self replicators. Even life isn't "brand new" according to you. Or are you saying the ability to self replicate is brand new, but function Z in my last post isn't, after all, function Z is something that wasn't there before, right? You are being hypocritical. Au contraire..... What's that if it's not a "net gains" don't occur argument? Do you consult with yourself when you write?Furthermore, you did say net gains didn't occur, not those words, but you claimed that when things are added things are lost at the same time, that's the point of your nose argument, isn't it? You retreated to the "brand new argument" after the other things you said never occurred are shown to. Evolution doesn't occur from nothing, it uses, duplicates, & co-opts pre-existing sequences to make new function & structure. I've made this point, what, three times now, why do you think your "brand new" argument falsifies evolution?If you are claiming that evolution & abiogenesis requires BRAND NEW things, then I'll have function Z as a brand new thing. The function zapped into existence from nowhere between condition A & B. Just like the function "self-replicate" zapped into existence. You can't have it both ways.Like crashfrog says,"Evolution doesn't demand new things to come from nowhere. Evolution is a process by which new organs and structures are made from pre-existing ones. That's why dolphins have pelvises, and bat wings are really elongated wrist bones. There's really very little novelty in evolution. It's all minor changes adding up over time. "All in all, your requirement for "brand new things" is a bit of a non-sequitur. But since you now accept that net gains of information/structure/function can actually occur, & therefore evolution can occur, my job is done.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-10-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-10-2003]

rabair, And I have pointed out, & this will be for the third time time, that evolution doesn't require "brand new", making your argument a non-sequitur.One is left wondering why you made the point. Well, why you made it once all your other points were destroyed, perhaps you had nowhere else to go & just didn't feel like conceding? You are a liar. Penicillin resistance was added by losing something, according to you. Function was added by losing something, according to you. Function was added by losing lots of little things, again, according to you.Ooh, YOU DID SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT!Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-10-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-11-2003]

Wounded,Over to you, mate. Read rabairs posts carefully & forget nothing. He will say things that mean things other things implicitly, & deny them because he never used that exact wording. He will repeat himself multiple times, & then claim he never said those things. See my last post to himEnjoy, I did.Anyway, perhaps it would be a more accurate statement to say when we don't know the truth, but are attempting to discover it, there are hypotheses that are less tentative than others, rather than more true.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, If you bothered to read the last paragraph in my post you would realise I'm not disagreeing with you, but Wounded. And you call him an idiot? Outstanding, rabair, outstanding.The person that claims not to have said something, & then has three separate quotes made where he DID say that thing should be more careful who he calls a "retard" & an "idiot", wouldn't you say?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

rabair, I didn't, I said I disagreed with Wounded, or more accurately was attempting to clarify. Let me remind you you had called me a liar, which I wasn't, you had lied yourself, & you had called Wounded a retard & an idiot. "Over to you, mate" is a pretty tame thing to be complaining about, isn't it?I note & accept your apology, & thank you for being big enough to do so. That's my point too. When determining the truth, you can't assume you have it at the beginning. The more evidence you have, the less tentative & more probable it is that you have the truth, or are at least in the right ball park. However, strictly speaking, & this was the only point being made by Wounded, was that something that was true was in fact, more true than something that is false.Anyway, unless you have anything to add that would save your argument from non-sequiturhood, we appear to be done.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."