Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[Ender]

“When will rossum ever define “information”?”

Well, to be strictly correct, he has. In his definition it is a number measuring some mathematical characteristic of the way data is transmitted. It just has nothing to do with the nature of the infor… of the content and meaning of the data; it makes no distinction between “I love my wife” and “I hate my wife” as the “information” number is probably the same. You want to use the term in its common definition meaning … meaning. You’re not going to get to use the word the way you want so I suggest you find another term - like complexity - to address the real issue you want to debate.

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

No, just as the cite CLAIMED. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that MRSA evolved via random mutations.

See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 28, 2002 vol. 99 no. 11 7687-7692

*The evolutionary history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
*

No, no, no. I said “science” not fairy tales. This is no better than the proclamations of Joseph Priestly. He made many assumptions regarding what he saw, but none of the assumptions were based on scientific fact.

Seeing bacteria populations developing resistances that were not previously exhibited does not mean that a mutation was the causal event. That’s an assumption which this paper has made, along with you apparently.

It is possible that bacteria were DESIGNED to allow mutations to effect changes such as are being seen. It is also possible for plasmid ingestion/transfer to bring about this resistance.

In any case, even if mutation is a viable defense mechanism for bacteria (single-celled organisms) does not mean that we can extrapolate that to macroevolution in multi-celled organisms and creatures.

 

[Monty_Arch]

No, no, no. I said “science” not fairy tales…

This is science. I didn’t get this info from the Proceeding of the National Academy of Fairy Tales.

It is possible that bacteria were DESIGNED to allow mutations to effect changes such as are being seen. It is also possible for plasmid ingestion/transfer to bring about this resistance.

Show me the SCIENCE for design

In any case, even if mutation is a viable defense mechanism for bacteria (single-celled organisms) does not mean that we can extrapolate that to macroevolution in multi-celled organisms and creatures

Mutations do occur in multi-celluar creatures.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Are you aware of any open issues at all in Darwinsim - anything that’s not completely explained; holes left to be filled, T’s to be crossed, I’s to be dotted?

Barbarian suggest Ender could learn about them:
There are entire journals dedicated to solving remaining problems in evolution

Good, then you should be able to list one or two of the major issues.

Of course. The point is that you can’t. The ones people told you were the major issues, aren’t issues at all.

Actually, what I’ve found is that scientists are pretty open to discussing what the problems are

Yes. I for example, just suggested you learn about some of them. One of the good ones is the role of geographic isolation in speciation, and whether allopatric evolution is the major mode, or whether phyletic evolution is more common.

There’s still the issue of the reduction in digits in birds; the exact fate of particular digits is at issue between Feduccia/Olsen and most other paleontologists. The question is whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or whether they have a common thecodont ancestor. The fossil and embryological evidence is not clear at this point, although feathered dinosaurs would be hard to explain if Feduccia is right.

The relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is still unclear.

There’s a lot of questions about the origin and evolution of bats, mostly because bats are delicate, and live where fossilization is rare to begin with.

Stuff like that.

But the non-scientists, who seem to feel that the admission that problems exist might compromise their position, are not.

Maybe you should stop listening to non-scientists about science.

 

[Ender]

Of course. The point is that you can’t. The ones people told you were the major issues, aren’t issues at all.

You have no idea of my background, what I have studied, or what or whom I have read. Whenever I ask for examples all I get back are evasions like this: “Of course I know, but I’m not telling you.” Right. This is one of those games where whoever goes first loses. If I suggest an example - no matter what it is - you will simply dismiss it as a nonsensical fairy tale. If you, on the other hand, mention something then it would be an admission that just perhaps there are things that Darwinism can’t (yet?) explain, an admission you are obviously loath to make. What are you afraid of?

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

You have no idea of my background, what I have studied, or what or whom I have read.

I know you’re not familiar with biology. For reasons everyone here can understand.

Whenever I ask for examples all I get back are evasions like this: “Of course I know, but I’m not telling you.” Right.

I gave you several. How many more would you like? Let me remind you what I wrote:

(Barbarian just a couple of posts back)

*I for example, just suggested you learn about some of them. One of the good ones is the role of geographic isolation in speciation, and whether allopatric evolution is the major mode, or whether phyletic evolution is more common.

There’s still the issue of the reduction in digits in birds; the exact fate of particular digits is at issue between Feduccia/Olsen and most other paleontologists. The question is whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or whether they have a common thecodont ancestor. The fossil and embryological evidence is not clear at this point, although feathered dinosaurs would be hard to explain if Feduccia is right.

The relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is still unclear.

There’s a lot of questions about the origin and evolution of bats, mostly because bats are delicate, and live where fossilization is rare to begin with.*

This is one of those games where whoever goes first loses.

Well, I went first. How do you think that’s “losing?”

If I suggest an example - no matter what it is - you will simply dismiss it as a nonsensical fairy tale.

One of the reasons I know you don’t know what you’re talking about, is that you bring up creationist objections that even some creationists admit are foolish. But there are scores of important questions yet to be resolved in evolution, as there are in all sciences.

You just don’t know what they are.

If you, on the other hand, mention something then it would be an admission that just perhaps there are things that Darwinism can’t (yet?) explain, an admission you are obviously loath to make.

How silly. The one real nightmare for a scientist is that someday there would be nothing left to find out in his specialty. We are pleased that problems remain that we might go and learn about them. I shared a few with you. No scientist is embarassed that there is work left to do in his specialty.

What are you afraid of?

Heights. Climbing high places gives me the willies. Would you like to see more problems in evolutionary science?

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

And on the heels of this, I am STILL WAITING for your definition for information. Why is it that you absolutely refuse to attend to this point?

Why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the standard scientific measures

of information?

Ask an evolutionist for a cup of water, and you’re bound to get arsenic.

I didn’t ask for HOW TO MEASURE INFORMATION. I asked for a DEFINITION FOR INFORMATION. There is a very real difference.

 

[Ender]

One of the reasons I know you don’t know what you’re talking about, is that you bring up creationist objections that even some creationists admit are foolish. But there are scores of important questions yet to be resolved in evolution, as there are in all sciences.

You just don’t know what they are.

Let’s test that theory. I am not a creationist and have no use for their arguments unless they appear to be valid challenges. For example, the issue has been raised about the completeness of the fossil record, a challenge that isn’t invalid simply because creationists make it. Paleontologists themselves are rather impressed with its discontinuous nature. There are gaps between all species and all higher taxa … not exactly what Darwin predicted. This is the level of issue I had in mind.

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

So, it was YOU who introduced the concept of a higher being, yet you accused me of being the one to do that?

It was you who used the word “creator” instead of “designer” in your post #717:

Here’s the second time that I’ve addressed this, and you have refused to acknowledge that you are lying about me.

It was YOU who introduced the concept of a creator. In your post #705, you asked,

[SIGN]“How does one falsify an idea like: “An entity about which we know nothing, used powers of which we are not aware, to arrange some DNA, or RNA or something, into a pattern at some unspecified time in the past and possibly also the present.””[/SIGN]​

Once you went outside of the confines of science, I assumed that it was permissible for me to do the same. Apparently, evolutionists hold their opponents to a higher standard than themselves. Interesting…

Well, to me that “entity” is the Creator, Holy God of the Bible. To you it is Shiva. To someone else it may be aliens from outerspace who seeded the planet earth with bits of DNA. Not all ID’ers will agree on who that original Designer is. But, this does not in any way negate the tenets of ID theory, nor make it any less or more scientific.

rossum:

ID literature is noramlly very careful not to use words like “creator”, but instead uses “designer”. To use the more religioous language would defeat the political objectives of ID.

No kidding. That’s because ID literature is scientific, not philosophical. That’s why ID literature is very careful not to use words that express a philosophical point of view.

 

[PEPCIS]

Ask an evolutionist for a cup of water, and you’re bound to get arsenic.

I didn’t ask for HOW TO MEASURE INFORMATION. I asked for a DEFINITION FOR INFORMATION. There is a very real difference.

A thought came to my mind on this subject…how can evolutionists know that what they are measuring is information, if they can’t define what it is???

Oh, that’s right…“Information is Shannon Information” (rossum)

What’s Shannon Information? “Shannon Information is that which Shannon measures” (rossum)

What is it that Shannon measures? “Shannon measures Shannon Information.” (rossum)

I’m not getting this… “See talkorigins.” (rossum)

LOL

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

You DO NOT HAVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR RANDOM MUTATIONS resulting in beneficial mutations, therefore increasing information.

I have already referred you to the Luria-Delbrück experiment. That experiment showed that random mutations (which you agreed were random) prevented the bacteria with the mutation being killed by a bacteriophage while their unmutated cousins were killed. You have an extremely strange definition of “beneficial” if you do not think that avoiding death by bacteriophage is not beneficial.

I have not agreed that there are mutations. They certainly do occur in bacteria, but there is no scientific evidence that this has occurred. As I noted in an earlier post on this subject, evolutionists create these ad hoc answers AFTER THE FACT (or as you noted in Latin “post hoc.”) These answers carry the ASSUMPTION that any genetic dissimilarities are mutations, simply because these genetic similarities show up in a population. These are not scientific observations, but are ad hoc generalisations created for the appearance of continuity in evolutionary scenarios.

But, just so you understand what I mean when I say “ad hoc”, allow me to refer you to this wikipedia definition: “Ad hoc can also have connotations of a makeshift solution, inadequate planning or improvised events.”

rossum:

The Luria-Delbrück experiment shows that random mutations can be beneficial.

The L-D experiment showed that random mutations were not responsible for the results.

rossum:

How is surviving an attack by a bacteriophage not beneficial?

No one said it wasn’t.

 

[PEPCIS]

"rossum:

There are about 2.3 x 1093 different ways of making a functional Cytochrome C protein.

PEPCIS:

Someone like you who possesses all knowledge in the universe knows beyond any doubt that all those variants work equally well in all environments.

We know that many of them work in many environments because we have sequenced different Cytochrome Cs from different organisms and in general they are different and of course they all work.

Since Cytochrome C is the essential protein responsible for metabolic reactions, this is highly unlikely. It is well known that different structures of Cytochrome C have different catalyzing rates. This makes perfect sense, considering that not all cellular life have the same requirements for processing energy. There are distinct differences in the electron transfer rates among differing constructions of Cytochrome C, and these correlate with the differences in the amino acid sequence for the differing Cytochrome C molecules.

Just as you noted, if the wrong Cytochrome C molecule ended up in the wrong organism, that organism would die. You should listen to yourself instead of arguing against yourself.

rossum:

It is noteworthy that the Cytochrome Cs from Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes are identical.

Only an evolutionist would find that “noteworthy.” Chimps are amazing creatures.

rossum:

Experiments have been done where the Cytochrome C from one organism is transferred into a different organism; in all cases the Cytochrome C has worked perfectly well in the new organism. We can easily tell this because if Cytochrome C does not work then the organism dies.

Please cite those supposed “experiments” where Cytochrome C was transferred. I’d like to read up on that.

rossum:

I do not posess “all knowledge in the universe”, but I do have a better awareness of what is in the scientific literature than you do.

This is nothing more than bodacious nonsense. You elevate yourself above your debate opponent without knowing anything about them. ROFLMBO!!

rossum:

That is why I have advised you to do more research so that you can avoid obvious errors.

BS The ONLY reason that you have done that is in your puny, pathetic attempts at ad hominem. There is NEVER any reason to introduce any personal attributes of your opponent. This includes references to their height, weight, age, appearance, knowledge, etc, etc. You obviously never participated in Debate Class.

rossum:

I am trying to help you with advice.

I have some advice for you: don’t stoop to low-class tactics which attack your opponent in any personal manner.

Now, if ALL molecules were the same in their construction, you might have something to this.

rossum:

Every single protein can be coded for in multiple different ways.

If this were the case, then we would not find uniformity in proteins within species. You’re not making any sense at all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Oh, that’s right…“Information is Shannon Information” (rossum)

What’s Shannon Information? “Shannon Information is that which Shannon measures” (rossum)

What is it that Shannon measures? “Shannon measures Shannon Information.” (rossum)

He showed you the formula. You could check for yourself. I showed you how it is calculated for the information in populations.

I’m not getting this…

There’s no royal road to biology, either. You’re going to have to do a little work and learn the math and the biology involved. Ignorance is not a defense.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
One of the reasons I know you don’t know what you’re talking about, is that you bring up creationist objections that even some creationists admit are foolish. But there are scores of important questions yet to be resolved in evolution, as there are in all sciences.

You just don’t know what they are.

Let’s test that theory.

Sounds good. Tell me what you think the most important remaining questions in evolutionary theory are. Then let’s compare them to creationist propaganda and see.

I am not a creationist and have no use for their arguments unless they appear to be valid challenges. For example, the issue has been raised about the completeness of the fossil record, a challenge that isn’t invalid simply because creationists make it. Paleontologists themselves are rather impressed with its discontinuous nature. There are gaps between all species and all higher taxa … not exactly what Darwin predicted.

Creationists often make this claim, which is of course false. Darwin wrote at length about the incompleteness of the fossil record and why we don’t have every fossil that ever existed. The chapter in his book, covering that subject is here. “Not exactly what Darwin predicted?” An egregiously false claim, invented by creationists. So you’ve just handed us another bit of evidence indicating that you are indeed a creationist.

This is the level of issue I had in mind.

I gave you some of the greatest questions in evolutionary science, and you want to talk about one that was settled over a hundred years ago. But let’s see how big an issue it is. Name several major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I’ll see if I can find transitionals. I’ve offered before, but when I do, everyone changes the subject. Let’s see if your creationist assertion is true or not.

Would you like a list of predicted transitionals which have since been found to exist? Can you explain why no transitionals that are counter to evolutionary theory have been found, while thousands that confirm evolutionary theory are now known?

Let’s see what you’ve got. BTW, there are still some groups that lack transitionals, but the list keeps getting smaller and smaller. Good luck.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Since Cytochrome C is the essential protein responsible for metabolic reactions, this is highly unlikely. It is well known that different structures of Cytochrome C have different catalyzing rates. This makes perfect sense, considering that not all cellular life have the same requirements for processing energy. There are distinct differences in the electron transfer rates among differing constructions of Cytochrome C, and these correlate with the differences in the amino acid sequence for the differing Cytochrome C molecules.

Hmmm…
tinyurl.com/d7l9ww

Your assertion seems to be refuted by the data. Explain to me how the energy of phosphorylation differs in different organisms, and the data supporting that claim.

 

[Ender]

Creationists often make this claim, which is of course false.

Actually, my statement was a paraphrase of yet another comment made by Ernst Mayr. I can’t believe you fell for this again; it seems to take you a while to catch on.

An egregiously false claim, invented by creationists. So you’ve just handed us another bit of evidence indicating that you are indeed a creationist.

“Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is pervasive continuity in the gradual change of the population of a species through time and space and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.” (Mayr - What Evolution Is)

Either you or Mayr is, in your words, egregiously wrong (hmm, who could it be?). Perhaps you need to read more as you appear to believe that, while it is good to be a Darwinist, quoting one is evidence of creationist tendencies.

Ender

 

[hecd2]

Actually, my statement was a paraphrase of yet another comment made by Ernst Mayr. I can’t believe you fell for this again; it seems to take you a while to catch on.
"Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is pervasive continuity in the gradual change of the population of a species through time and space and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record." (Mayr - What Evolution Is)

Either you or Mayr is, in your words, egregiously wrong (hmm, who could it be?). Perhaps you need to read more as you appear to believe that, while it is good to be a Darwinist, quoting one is evidence of creationist tendencies.

Ender

I think that it is you who is wrong. Could you give us the page in Mayr’s book where you get your quote from, as I can’tfind it and I’d like to see the context?

Here are some quotes from Mayr’s What Evolution Is:

" A few fossil lineages are remarkably complete. This is true for instance for the lineage that leads from the therapsid reptiles to the mammals. Some of these fossils appear to be so intermediate between reptiles and mammals that it is almost arbitrary whether to call them reptiles or mammals. A remarkably complete set of transitions was found between the land-living ancestors of the whales and their aquatic descendants. These fossils document that whales are derived from ungulates (mesonychid condylartha) that increasingly become adapted to life in water. [This conclusion has been reinforced by the molecular evidence] The australopithecene ancestors of man also form a rather impressive transition from a chimpanzeelike anthropoid stage to that of modern man." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, ISBN 0 297 60731 3, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002, p14 - 15. .[Note that since Mayr wrote the transitions from fish to tetrapod and from dinosaur to bird have also been documented by multiple transitional fossils].

“What is particularly convincing about fossil animal series is that each fossil type is found at the time level at which one ought to expect it. For instance, modern mammals began to evolve after the Alvarez extinction event at the beginning of the Paleocene…no modern mammal, therefore, should be found in strata that are 100 or 200 million years old and indeed none has ever been found.” Ibid, p16

“Fortunately, since 1859 the fossil record has improved dramatically and we now have a large number of cases where the gradual change of a species into a derived species can be documented, step by step, and where even the gradual change of a genus into a derived genus can be followed.” Ibid p63

“An even more complete gradation is presented by the evolution of the modern horse.” Ibid, p63

“This mode of phyletic evolution is particularly well documented for the bryozoan genus Metaraptodes. Futuyama (1998) describes and illustrates numerous such cases of nearly complete phyletic series”. Ibid p63.

So it seems you are wrong about Mayr’s opinion on this matter.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

I am not a creationist and have no use for their arguments unless they appear to be valid challenges. For example, the issue has been raised about the completeness of the fossil record, a challenge that isn’t invalid simply because creationists make it. Paleontologists themselves are rather impressed with its discontinuous nature. There are gaps between all species and all higher taxa … not exactly what Darwin predicted.

Barbarian observes:
Creationists often make this claim, which is of course false. Darwin wrote at length about the incompleteness of the fossil record and why we don’t have every fossil that ever existed. The chapter in his book, covering that subject is here. “Not exactly what Darwin predicted?” An egregiously false claim, invented by creationists. So you’ve just handed us another bit of evidence indicating that you are indeed a creationist.

Actually, my statement was a paraphrase of yet another comment made by Ernst Mayr.

No, it wasn’t. Mayr never made a claim that Darwin predicted a complete fossil record. (I took the liberty of restoring the text you deleted, the undoctored text makes it clear what you said, and what I said) (note: two post below is the edited text, which makes it look like something quite different was said)

No matter how upset you get, you can always make it worse by misrepresenting people. I showed you that your creationist claim that Darwin didn’t accept gaps in the fossil record was wrong. And you tried to edit it to make it appear that I denied any gaps in the fossil record. Shame on you.

I can’t believe you fell for this again; it seems to take you a while to catch on.

You aren’t clever enough to pull off something like that. It’s dumb to even try when the evidence is still on the board.

Barbarian observes:
An egregiously false claim, invented by creationists. So you’ve just handed us another bit of evidence indicating that you are indeed a creationist.

Either you or Mayr is, in your words, egregiously wrong

Nope. No one (including Darwin) denied gaps. I’m pointing out that (like most creationists), you claimed gaps were not what Darwin predicted. And as I said, that is an egregiously false statement. I even linked you to an entire chapter in his book discussing the gaps.

Perhaps you need to read more as you appear to believe that, while it is good to be a Darwinist, quoting one is evidence of creationist tendencies.

Quote-mining, which is carefully snipping a statement to make it appear that one believes what one does not, is certainly a common behavior of creationists. Which is another reason for us to believe you are a creationist.

I’ve been quote-mined before, but never so incompetently. Never fake a quote when the original is still on the board.

And now, let’s get back to the question you keep dodging. You claim that transitional organisms are lacking. Pick some major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I’ll see if I can find transitional forms.

What are you afraid of?

 

[PEPCIS]

I think that it is you who is wrong. Could you give us the page in Mayr’s book where you get your quote from, as I can’tfind it and I’d like to see the context?

I found it here: What Evolution Is. “Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is a pervasive continuityu in the gradual change of the populations of a species through time and space and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

To make it even more clear that Ender’s claim:

I am not a creationist and have no use for their arguments unless they appear to be valid challenges. For example, the issue has been raised about the completeness of the fossil record, a challenge that isn’t invalid simply because creationists make it. Paleontologists themselves are rather impressed with its discontinuous nature. There are gaps between all species and all higher taxa … not exactly what Darwin predicted.

Is completely false, read:

**But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. **
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Much of this is no longer true, of course. As rossum pointed out, we have a good number of cases where gradual evolution is well-documented in the fossil record. But Ender’s claim (quite commonly asserted by creationists) that it isn’t exactly what Darwin said, is clearly false.

As noted above, it is also false that gradual evolution is not found in the fossil record. And as far as the claim that great gaps exist, notice that Ender has repeatedly declined my offer to look at any two groups said to be evolutionarily related, to see if I can locate a transitional.

It’s not hard to understand why.