Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.

Amen

Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.

 

[daws101]

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

stop calling me Shirley! ....give me ham on five and hold the mayo!

 

[Hollie]

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.

 

[daws101]

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.

Amen

Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.

your belief is not proof .. how would you test for god's punishment ?
might be a good time for you to back off the hour of power broadcasts?

 

[Koios]

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Correct. They do not. And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.

So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time. So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!

 

[Hollie]

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.

Amen

Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.

Somebody call security.....

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.

I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Correct. They do not. And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.

So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time. So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!

We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.

 

[Hollie]

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.

I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.

I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.

 

[Koios]

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.

I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.

Nope; only half of each. Plus only certain traits are dominant, such as hair and eye color. And genetic defects only come into play when both parents, chosen to be together by God, have the same defective gene, praise babyjesus.

And nothing proves God's existence quite like a cursory understanding of genetics, rife with wild assumptions, which to folks who actually know shit, is fucking laughable.

Amen

 

[Koios]

Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.

I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.

I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.

Hollie, you ignorant slut! We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.

I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.

Nope; only half of each. Plus only certain traits are dominant, such as hair and eye color. And genetic defects only come into play when both parents, chosen to be together by God, have the same defective gene, praise babyjesus.

And nothing proves God's existence quite like a cursory understanding of genetics, rife with wild assumptions, which to folks who actually know shit, is fucking laughable.

Amen

Yes I agree, genetic defects only come into play when both parents possess the same defective gene. Did I say otherwise ?

 

[Koios]

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Correct. They do not. And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.

So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time. So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!

We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.

Astonishing. Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of. Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation. Every one. Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others). So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated. Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.

Next, they turn on an off. Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch. And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross. So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls. Great. Save money and the planet from global warming. All good. But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.

That help?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.

I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.

Hollie, you ignorant slut! We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.

Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.

Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

 

[Youwerecreated]

Correct. They do not. And it's a fucking fact, supported unambiguously by the complexity of the genes within species, which tracks not to how complex the species themselves are but how long they've been in existence. Thus plants, even simple ones, have MUCH longer gene strands than you or I do.

So, and for the Nth fucking time, PROTEINS turn the fuckers on and off, at specified stages in development, and for, mostly, a specified amount of time. So having the genes for a tail (PAX9 gene, and others) is moot, in us, BECAUSE THEY'RE VESTIGIAL!!!!!

We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.

Astonishing. Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of. Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation. Every one. Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others). So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated. Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.

Next, they turn on an off. Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch. And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross. So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls. Great. Save money and the planet from global warming. All good. But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.

That help?

I don't need your help to understand gene expression

 

[Koios]

I understand your conception of "gene expression" is your view of how you want it to be, but your contradictory claims, self-refuting arguments and amateurish understanding of the subject matter is clownish, at best.

Hollie, you ignorant slut! We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.

Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.

Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Good girl, Ywc. Quote some Creationist junk science loons. That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff. Bravo, madame.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My guy believes in micro-adaptations or micro-evolution but I prefer the other term,it's more accurate.

 

[Koios]

We all possess that gene but not in a mutated state.

Astonishing. Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of. Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation. Every one. Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others). So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated. Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.

Next, they turn on an off. Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch. And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross. So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls. Great. Save money and the planet from global warming. All good. But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.

That help?

I don't need your help to understand gene expression

Cool. But I need your help. Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?

Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.

Amen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, you ignorant slut! We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.

Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.

Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Good girl, Ywc. Quote some Creationist junk science loons. That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff. Bravo, madame.

Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics

Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.