First off I find statements like:
Message 108Please bear my unpoliteness considering his curious slanders against me ("You're not a scientist", etc). I'm a 50 y/o podiatrist (chiropodist in the UK). I highly respect CF's persistence, intelligence, and thoughtful-feedback (before God and man).
To be totally irrelevant. First off they are an argument from authority, except here it isn't substantiated except by your say-so.
And it's a way of saying "look who I am, my argument must be good" ... or trying to anyway.
What you are on these forums is what you post and nothing more.
I ("in good faith") read what I read (in my paranoiac transformation as you've accused me)
I said "Denial of evidence that contradicts your opinion is not faith, it is delusion" -- you are free to choose the definition you think suits you best, if you wish to wear those shoes. I've only pointed out the consequences of continued denial.
... and repeat the fallacies that I perceived on that seemingly gross yet pointless thread. You’re welcome to refute these specifically or bash me as totally deluded.
The key words are: “pre-built”, “always”, and “robust alleles”. Which of these do you wish to falsify as newly begotten genes or beneficial mutations ?
The issue is that a gene was deleted. The function of the gene ceased. There was no “pre-built” response that just started up into operation to replace the function: why? it did not exist in the form necessary to do so.
It was not a copy section of the previous gene that mutated either, so it was not a matter of “robust alleles” hiding in wait for such an opportunity.
The section of another gene that mutated filled one of the two functions necessary to replace the system disrupted by the deletion of the gene in question.
It did not happen right away, because it had to change.
Neither does “always” apply, as not all of the bacteria in the study evolved the new gene, mostly they died.
After the first mutation there was a second that replaced another part of the original system to metabolize lactose, thus regaining the original
ability with a different
system than existed before.
Now you can hand wave, and label things with new terms of your making, but the fact remains: a gene mutated, it was different than it was before mutation, it increased the ability of the bacteria to survive.
More to the point, it replaced information that had been removed.
Therefore it added information.
In order to show that information was not added, you have to now show that it was not lost in the experiment: that all the bacteria survived on lactose even with the destroyed gene.
Good luck on your quest; despite the improbability of finding one, it seems that this somehow means a lot to you. Why are you chasing a phantom?
Enjoy.
ps - calling a post "that seemingly gross yet pointless thread" while not making any attempt to show that this is the case, or in any way addressing a single point on the post to even show you read it is intellectual dishonesty.
Edited by RAZD, : added ps
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2