Evolution in pieces.

Boring. I don't debate with websites.Come back when you can argue in your own words, please.

My response,TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
Elsevier | An Information Analytics BusinessOr would that be unfair?

Blimey! Who urinated in your soup?Before I reply let me make one thing clear: I am not trying to play word games or score points, I am honestly trying to determine your position by asking questions and I don't appreciate the hostile nature of your reply.That said, you did raise a few questions in your post (in between avoiding my first question and calling my second one lame!) so I'll start with one.DNA similarities :The DNA evidence relies on the cast iron fact that the enzymes involved in replicating it are imperfect; they make mistakes. You mention your family tree in your post so let's start there. If you compared one of your genes to the same gene in your father's genome they'd be pretty similar. Any mistakes that are in his are going to be in your gene, and you may even have added one or two mistakes yourself.Apart from the other evidence that you are father and son your genes would show you are related. If you had a look at the bloke down the road you would share a common ancestor and you could find out where your lineages diverged. How would you know? There would be common mistakes and mistakes unique to each of the family lines. As you point out, if you left it there it might just be due to chance similarity, it may just be coincidence. So you can do the same with many many genes until the odds start to stack up.This is how DNA evidence for evolution works (also using common rearrangements, gene duplication and retroviruses.), it does not rely on what the DNA actually codes for. So just saying similarity is all there is not really a fair representation of the facts. You've gotta come up with an explanation that fits these facts. Evolution has got one, so far creationism doesn't seem to be able to provide.If you want to discuss this or any of the other points you want to raise (like the limits of our knowledge in molecular developmental biology for example) then I will be happy to continue.I look forward to your reply.

Elder:For the moment you will have to take my word for it that I have taken U.S. Route 460 from Southern Illinois to Norfolk, Va. I am not able to find you a suitable map online, but the route is now replaced with I-64, a fact you may research yourself.But as a parallel example, I offer: http:IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found where a group is trying to preserve the old federal highway known as Rte 40, which I have taken from Cumberland, Maryland west to Terre Haute, Indiana. This route was largely replaced by I-70.

quote:

---

You also said all of science is unproven, I DONT think that is true, specation is proven.

---

Nothing in science is proven in the sense that nothing in science is ever considered to be immune to new evidence.That is called "tentativity", and is a very important tenet of scientific inquiry.Here's another explanation:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comA necessary consequence of scientific claims being falsifiable is that they are also fallible. For example, Einstein's special theory of relativity is accepted as "correct" in the sense that "its necessary inclusion in calculations leads to excellent agreement with experiments" (Friedlander 1972, 41). This does not mean the theory is infallibly certain. Scientific facts, like scientific theories, are not infallible certainties. Facts involve not only easily testable perceptual elements; they also involve interpretation.Noted paleoanthropologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould reminds us that in science 'fact' can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (Gould 1983, 254). However, facts and theories are different things, notes Gould, "not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." In Popper's words: "Theories are nets cast to catch what we call 'the world': to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer."To the uninformed public, facts contrast with theories. Non-scientists commonly use the term 'theory' to refer to a speculation or guess based on limited information or knowledge. However, when we refer to a scientific theory, we are not referring to a speculation or guess, but to a systematic explanation of some range of empirical phenomena. Nevertheless, scientific theories vary in degree of certainty from the highly improbable to the highly probable. That is, there are varying degrees of evidence and support for different theories, i.e., some are more reasonable to accept than others.There are, of course, many more facts than theories, and once something has been established as a scientific fact (e.g., that the earth goes around the sun) it is not likely to be replaced by a "better" fact in the future. Whereas, the history of science clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is, among other things, the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc. It is the history of theories working well for a while, anomalies occurring (i.e., new facts being discovered which do not fit with established theories) and new theories being proposed and eventually replacing the old ones partially or completely (Kuhn). It is the history of rare geniuses--such as a Newton, a Darwin or an Einstein--finding new and better ways of explaining natural phenomena.We should remember that science, as Jacob Bronowski put it, "is a very human form of knowledge....Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error.... Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible" (Bronowski, 374). "One aim of the physical sciences," he said, "has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that aim is unattainable" (353).

quote:

---

One of the things that has been observed with mutation is, mutation has not ever shown/been-observed to have a enhancment of any kind,

---

I have a mutation which prevented my lower wisdom teeth from forming. I have a small mouth, and had to get braces and extractions to get all of my teeth to fit, so I would have definitely had painful impacted wisdom teeth had they existed.Therefore, the mutation was beneficial....unless you can explain to me how it wasn't a good thing...

Hogwash. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural SelectionEmergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution (pdf) Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish

Ok, I am sorry for the horrible assumption, People in other threads have tried to play word games and they appered similar to your tactics. I will start with this. I believe it is a theory that enzymes involved in replicating make mistakes. If the theory of mutation is factual? Dont understand this paragraph at all. I dont see any facts, I see theory on top of theory on top of theory, which confuses and leads people to thinking they have facts. Example: Phylogenies representing the relatedness of each species; is not a factual relatedness, it is theoretical, because similarites are the foundation.------------------
The Elder

I ment mutation leading to more information.------------------
The Elder

I understand that science claims have a tentative factor. Dont bother explaining or backing it up. What I am saying is that to make the theory of evoltuion more tentative their are more theories piled on top of each other and each one have the same tentative factor. So essentially you have a Theory with micro theories inside of it to make it more tentative.------------------
The Elder

More information as posted.------------------
The Elder

Let's be clear here. You know so little about this subject that you still don't know that mutations happen a lot! That you have several yourself? That they are observed and measured?Is that what this odd little statement is telling us?I wasn't aware that any creationists were trying to say that mutations didn't happen. They say a lot of silly things but not that. Do you have some source for your comment or is it just off the top of your head?

So you agree that mutations happen then? Good, whew! I was a bit worried there.Let's leave the argument about whether there is "information" in the genome out of it for a bit. I'm pretty easy on that; it depends on how you define information.Can I paraphrase your point so we don't have to have a, perhaps, poorly defined word in there?Do mutations produce novel (that is new) genetic sequences?
Do mutations (and there are many sorts) produced genonmes with greater numbers of base pairs in them than in the previous generations?
Are any of these in actual genes that are expressed as proteins?
Are novel proteins ever produced?One answer: Yes.If you don't think that novel or more base pairs in the genome is more "information" then you'll have to define what "information" is in this context.------------------
Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-26-2003]

Ok, (added by edit)bumped Please dont call me a christian or a creationist as I see both groups confused.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-26-2003]

It doesn't matter what kind. Let's just see if we can agree they happen.