Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5308 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 73 of 367 (31360)
02-04-2003 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 5:01 PM


Sonnike,
quote:
SLPx, would any answer actually satisfy you and possibly convince you?
SLPx is under no obligation to answer this. You have made an assertion, the burden of evidence resides with you. If Dr Page will allow me to repeat his question:
quote:
"Evidence that the information for the speciation of the salmon in question was present from the beginning.
WHAT, exactly, this information is. You must know, for otherwise you would not have claimed that it was already there.
Explain why "no new information" can arise naturalistically.
To answer this, start by providing a biologically relevant definiton of "information."
Support the above responses with verifiable scientific sources."
If you can't provide evidence of this, Sonnike, no one is obliged to accept your argument any more than you would accept pink fairies push the earth around the sun.
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html
Futuyma refers to an experiment where a lactose cleaving enzyme was knocked out. The bacteria were then cultured on a lactose bearing substrate. Predictably, most died, but every now and again a culture flourished, & it wasn't just a new lactose cleaving enzyme that evolved, either..........
"Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, 1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]
Strange that new function can evolve when it DEFINATELY never existed in the parent population. Surely, according to you, the only way this could happen if there were pre-existing genetic information in the genome. This was eliminated, so it can't be true. If there were "intelligent" mutations, one would expect many/all cultures to survive, this wasn't the case. Conclusion: RM & NS resulted in the population wide existence of an enzyme that cleaves lactose, an enzyme expression control system, & a control for the associated permease. It wasn't there when the experiment started. This contradicts your claim that the information for new function must pre-exist in genomes, or am I misunderstanding?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 5:01 PM DanskerMan has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5308 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 173 of 367 (32219)
02-14-2003 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Zephan
02-14-2003 8:02 AM


Zephan,
quote:
So you agree that abiogenesis is as viable as special creation?
Are you now willing to embrace Intelligent Design and teach the same alongside abiogenesis?
Until you are, the only permissible logical imperative of evolution will continue to be abiogenesis.
It is nice to see an evolutionist open his/her mind to the possibility however. If only the olive branch was sincerely offered....
Evolution is consistent with the three possible alternatives, abiogenesis, intelligent design, & eternality of self replicators. Therefore, no one one of those is the only permissible logical imperative of evolution. Abiogenesis is separate to evolution. Evolution works no matter which one you pick.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Zephan, posted 02-14-2003 8:02 AM Zephan has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5308 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 193 of 367 (32429)
02-17-2003 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Zephan
02-17-2003 7:49 AM


Zephan,
quote:
You people are the ones saying that abiogenesis and evolution are different.
....Which unwittingly proves my point about abiogenesis being an imperative of evolution.
How does abiogenesis become the logical imperative of evolution when evolution is also consistent with ID & eternal life? Obvious answer? It isn't.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Zephan, posted 02-17-2003 7:49 AM Zephan has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5308 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 319 of 367 (34526)
03-16-2003 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by peter borger
03-16-2003 5:49 PM


Peter,
You going to support your palaeontology claims, or what?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by peter borger, posted 03-16-2003 5:49 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by peter borger, posted 03-16-2003 11:00 PM mark24 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024