Denial of evolution III

[Jack_]

I have heard of a similar experiment with citrate. It's a long running and rigorous experiment with e. coli. Far from disproving evolution, it actually supports the theory. They know exactly which generation aquired one mutation, which was a prerequisite to metabolizing citrate. Then, another mutation happened, which together with the first, enabled e. coli to live off something it never could before. Only one of 12 original strains developed these two particular mutations.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

This is insufficient as the experiments I supplied shows TOE could not explain the genetic modification.

You would need to refute the experiments I posted to refute my argument.

Supplying other experiments not relevent to the logic is strawman and is getting off task.

I am hoping to keep this thread completely logical but I see that will be a challenge.

 

[Jack_]

Jack_:



Is this a roundabout way of saying you're a Lamarckian, who believes in inheritance of learned traits?

Do your Lamarckian views extend beyond bacteria to higher animals, or do they only apply to bacteria?



That's debateable and controversial.



There's no evidence of that, as far as I can see.

Well, it is claimed Lamarckian is falsified in higher species. However, those claims do not include creativity and therefore are not viable.

Furthermore, for science to claim advanced species cannot alter their genetic material on the fly indicates they have a complete understanding of higher species.

Yet, they cannot explain how bacteria alters it genes beyond TOE.

Therefore, if science cannot explain how bacteria alters its genes on the fly, it certainly cannot logically decide higher species cannot.

 

[Jack_]

It's known that some foods contain chemicals that act as mutagens. That is why most animals restrict themselves to a specific diet. If something is starving, it might go outside it's usual diet, and thus expose itself to more mutations than might otherwise occur. Indications are that other kinds of stress can trigger a similar phenomenon:

Abstract

Comparative biochemistry demonstrates that the metabolites, complex biochemical networks, enzymes and regulatory mechanisms essential to all living cells are conserved in amazing detail throughout evolution. Thus, in order to evolve, an organism must overcome new adverse conditions without creating different but equally dangerous alterations in its ongoing successful metabolic relationship with its environment. Evidence suggests that stable long-term acquisitive evolution results from minor increases in mutation rates of genes related to a particular stress, with minimal disturbance to the balanced and resilient metabolism critical for responding to an unpredictable environment. Microorganisms have evolved specific biochemical feedback mechanisms that direct mutations to genes derepressed by starvation or other stressors in their environment. Transcription of the activated genes creates localized supercoiling and DNA secondary structures with unpaired bases vulnerable to mutation. The resulting mutants provide appropriate variants for selection by the stress involved, thus accelerating evolution with minimal random damage to the genome. This model has successfully predicted mutation frequencies in genes of E. coli and humans. Stressed cells observed in the laboratory over hundreds of generations accumulate mutations that also arise by this mechanism. When this occurs in repair-deficient mutator strains with high rates of random mutation, the specific stress-directed mutations are also enhanced.​

This is insufficient to prove the experiments presented false.

Otherwise, make the logical connection and prove it.

You are attempting to prove a logical fallacy of a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.

You must refute the experiments I provided.

 

[Jack_]

It's possible that stress, such as lack of food, can trigger increased mutation rates, this is an interesting evolutionary trait. Also, life forms like bacteria can borrow genetic material from other life forms.

It is possible that stress triggers an intelligent response that increases genetic mutation. That has been noted in experiments.

The experiment excluded and controlled other life forms obviously.

However, the mutations evolved in the correct direction beyond environmental influences and increased genetic mutation.

That was the whole point of the experiments.

 

[Kennyc]

Umm, this thread is not about denying TOE.

It is about showing it is not sufficient.

If you are declaring TOE as absolute truth, then let's see how that will turn out for you.

I have supplied documentation that indicates this insufficiency. You have not been able to refute this.


For you to exclude these experiments in logic is intellectual dishonesty.

Uh, No. Evolution is established fact. This thread is about how this most recent discovery fits in. If you have proof that evolution is false then publish your work. The theory of evolution will be forthwith revised or dropped.

 

[spidergoat]

It is possible that stress triggers an intelligent response that increases genetic mutation. That has been noted in experiments.

The experiment excluded and controlled other life forms obviously.

However, the mutations evolved in the correct direction beyond environmental influences and increased genetic mutation.

That was the whole point of the experiments.

It is by no means shown that this response is intelligent. It could more easily be explained as an evolved trait. Creatures that had the ability to respond to stress by stimulating mutations at least had a small chance to overcome whatever factor was stressing them.

You would need to refute the experiments I posted to refute my argument.

I did try to go step by step, but you were evasive, you never responded to my post. You are using a strawman fallacy, which says that if Lamarckian evolution can occur, then evolution by natural selection cannot.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Umm, this thread is not about denying TOE. It is about showing it is not sufficient.

There are only a dozen or two professional scientists on SciForums, and none of them is an evolutionary biologist. So we're all perplexed, or just downright suspicious, when someone shows up with evidence which he claims will seriously challenge evolution. What does he expect us to do with it? If his science is really that good, no one here is qualified to peer-review it. Why isn't he in a university, pursuing his groundbreaking discovery?

You have to have some sympathy for the Moderators. The world is full of precocious teenagers with one semester of physics who are convinced that they've found the flaw in Relativity, and they always seem to end up here. Credentialed adult scientists don't bring their discoveries to us!

If you are declaring TOE as absolute truth, then let's see how that will turn out for you.

There is no such thing as "absolute truth" in science. If you're the scientist you claim to be, you surely know that. There is absolute truth in math, because all of its theories apply to abstractions. In science, the best we can do is "true beyond a reasonable doubt," to borrow the language of the law since the language of science is not up to the job of describing itself.

I have supplied documentation that indicates this insufficiency. You have not been able to refute this.

I'm a software engineer with a degree in accounting. I suppose someone in New Guinea might consider me a biologist because I have practical knowledge of breeding, nutrition, etc., in several species, but that doesn't make me a biologist in the USA, much less on SciForums. So you're talking to the wrong guy.

I know enough about biology to explain some of it to laymen and the less precocious high schoolers, but not to peer-review a challenge to evolution. Only the run-of-the-mill varieties, which are based on either an argument from the authority of the Bible, or on ignorance of the fact that evolution does not include abiogenesis.

For you to exclude these experiments in logic is intellectual dishonesty.

No one is excluding anything. There is already a thread dedicated to evolution and alleged challenges to it. If this thread is now about evolution rather than primatology it would be logical to merge it.

 

[Neverfly]

You have to have some sympathy for the Moderators. The world is full of precocious teenagers with one semester of physics who are convinced that they've found the flaw in Relativity, and they always seem to end up here. Credentialed adult scientists don't bring their discoveries to us!

Sig worthy material.

 

[James R]

Jack_:

Well, it is claimed Lamarckian is falsified in higher species. However, those claims do not include creativity and therefore are not viable.

Are you claiming that creativity is a learned trait passed down to newborn children? What evidence have you got that supports that?

Furthermore, for science to claim advanced species cannot alter their genetic material on the fly indicates they have a complete understanding of higher species.

I'm not aware that "science" makes any such claim.

Yet, they cannot explain how bacteria alters it genes beyond TOE.

I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that bacteria alters its genes in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

Therefore, if science cannot explain how bacteria alters its genes on the fly, it certainly cannot logically decide higher species cannot.

Why not? Please explain.

 

[Jack_]

OK.
I see this thread is moved under a logic that I attempted to disprove TOE.

Intellectually, I made it clear that was not my intention.

I specifically stated TOE was not sufficient to explain evolution and provided experiments as such that cannot be refuted to prove this insufficiency.

Therefore, I would be intellectually dishonest to debate this issue under the context that I was trying to refute TOE when the experiments provided certainly provided context of TOE's insufficiency.

As such, I am done with this debate.

You all have a nice day.

 

[Neverfly]

OK.
I see this thread is moved under a logic that I attempted to disprove TOE.

Intellectually, I made it clear that was not my intention.

I specifically stated TOE was not sufficient to explain evolution and provided experiments as such that cannot be refuted to prove this insufficiency.

Therefore, I would be intellectually dishonest to debate this issue under the context that I was trying to refute TOE when the experiments provided certainly provided context of TOE's insufficiency.

As such, I am done with this debate.

You all have a nice day.

Sheesh... Intellecutally dishonest?

You think that the experiments you linked to "PROVED" your claims?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I see this thread is moved under a logic that I attempted to disprove TOE. Intellectually, I made it clear that was not my intention.

You trotted out a number of examples of the same tired old totally-refuted creationist arguments that creationists have been trotting out for as long as I can remember. As such, this is the appropriate thread to contain them.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck……

I specifically stated TOE was not sufficient to explain evolution and provided experiments as such that cannot be refuted to prove this insufficiency.

According to you, maybe. But it seems your understanding of the Theory of Evolution is about as accurate and detailed as your understanding of the Theory of Special Relativity (judging from your numerous posts in the Pseudoscience forum).

ie. not very

Therefore, I would be intellectually dishonest to debate this issue under the context that I was trying to refute TOE when the experiments provided certainly provided context of TOE's insufficiency.

It’s funny when you lecture us on intellectual dishonesty.

As such, I am done with this debate.

Hurray! :bravo:

 

[Jack_]

OK, I see lots of accusations but I do not see any proofs.

Now, you would need to refute my SR logic over there. Feel free.There is a twins contradiction over there that everyone stays away from. I am sure you will be able to handle that and refute it.

In addition, you will need to refute the experiments I posted. Based on your post, I see you are very confident and this will not be a problem.

Finally, from a position of logic, you are claiming TOE is necessary and sufficient to explain all features of life.

I am sure you can do this.

 

[Neverfly]

OK, I see lots of accusations but I do not see any proofs.

Now, you would need to refute my SR logic over there. Feel free.There is a twins contradiction over there that everyone stays away from. I am sure you will be able to handle that and refute it.

In addition, you will need to refute the experiments I posted. Based on your post, I see you are very confident and this will not be a problem.

Finally, from a position of logic, you are claiming TOE is necessary and sufficient to explain all features of life.

I am sure you can do this.

Jack, you always claim that people fail to refute your claims even though several people successfully do so.

You claim people don't answer topics that they do answer.

Everytime you get backed into a corner, you change the subject or, wildly, start claiming you are not backed into a corner! It's downright WEIRD.

Why should anyone take this post of yours seriously, at all?

 

[Kennyc]

OK, I see lots of accusations but I do not see any proofs.

Now, you would need to refute my SR logic over there. Feel free.There is a twins contradiction over there that everyone stays away from. I am sure you will be able to handle that and refute it.

In addition, you will need to refute the experiments I posted. Based on your post, I see you are very confident and this will not be a problem.

Finally, from a position of logic, you are claiming TOE is necessary and sufficient to explain all features of life.

I am sure you can do this.

There is no need for anyone to do anything. If you have proof that negates evolution, publish it.
If you have a theory that replaces (or even enhances) evolution, publish it.

It will be welcomed with open arms.

Posting and arguing here on a web forum will do nothing to establish your position or negate evolution.

I'm sure you can do this.

 

[Jack_]

There is no need for anyone to do anything. If you have proof that negates evolution, publish it.
If you have a theory that replaces (or even enhances) evolution, publish it.

It will be welcomed with open arms.

Posting and arguing here on a web forum will do nothing to establish your position or negate evolution.

I'm sure you can do this.

I supplied published experiments that showed it was insufficient.

Can you refute the experiments yes or no?

 

[Kennyc]

I supplied published experiments that showed it was insufficient.

Can you refute the experiments yes or no?

Not the point.

Have these experiments been published in peer reviewed journals, have they been replicated? Do they have any implications to the theory of evolution? If so then there is once more no need for anyone (particularly here) to do anything.

 

[786]

If so then there is once more no need for anyone (particularly here) to do anything.

Wait are you implying that all of you here are supposed to accept everything Big Brother says without your own criticism?

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

I supplied published experiments that showed it was insufficient.

Can you refute the experiments yes or no?

No, you did not.
Be honest.

You linked to studies that you cherry picked to mean whatever you wanted them to mean.

Wait are you implying that all of you here are supposed to accept everything Big Brother says without your own criticism?

Peace be unto you

No, but they can accept validated and independently verified conclusions over idle harebrained speculation.

 

[Ophiolite]

I supplied published experiments that showed it was insufficient.

You supplied published experiments that questioned one aspect of evolution in one narrow arena. Do you seriously contend that rasing issues about one small aspect of evolution in one small arena is equivalent to falsifying the whole goddamn theory?
I mean really.:shrug:

You know what Jack, you would get a far better hearing if you dropped the smug routine and made a better attempt to hide your agenda. The latter is protruding from your flies right now and it is a lot more embarassing for you than it is for us. (For us it's just unpleasant to look at.)