|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2004 : 08:53:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
Appreciate comments.
tk
I would like to submit the following article:
'Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.' by B.G. Hall and T. Zuzel, which appeared in PNAS in 1980, issue 77(6), pages 3529 to 3533.
Briefly, an E.coli strain gains the ability to utelise galactosylarabinose as a foodsource by recombining two enzymes involved in metabolisation of other compounds.
The likely creationist response is that because it's a recombination of previously existing enzymes no new information is added and that therefor it "doesn't count".
My advice is to request a working definition of the term "information" beforehand. Considering the difficulty of a coherent definition of information in the context of genetics a previously agreed upon definition will give you leverage in the debate.
Best wishes!
[Edited to fix link] |
| Edited by - Plyss on 12/17/2004 08:56:16 |
 |
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2004 : 17:21:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
The likely creationist response is that because it's a recombination of previously existing enzymes no new information is added and that therefor it "doesn't count".
If this is the counterargument, then all you have to say is, "Then evolution does not require new information since changing protein function is all that is needed." You can often catch them defining "new information" so that it is no longer necessary for evolution to acquire this "new information".
|
|
|
|
mgbworks
New Member
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 05:17:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
I am doing a formal debate with a Creationist at CF and I am making sure this is the same Creationist claim that I've heard before. Here is his argument:
quote:
Using the defenition provided I will begin, starting with A. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of naturual selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of a new species. I will break this up. First naturaul selection. DEFINITION-Survival of the fittest, or more recent, reproduction of the fittest. An organism may possess some inheritable trait or charactor which in a given ebvironment gives it a greater chance for survival-over time this change makes it more likely for it to be passed on to the next generation. examples are haveing longer hair in colder weather colour for camoflauge or hunting prey or features that attract the mate. The ones with these types of features have a better chance of survival, they adapt to the environment. BUT naturual selection in a sense acually takes info from their ancestors, they lost a portion of the info which they had. if a plant adapted to dry land by growing longer roots and it was passed down and than it became very wet this plant could not start growing shorter roots. Breeding is a nother example man as been able to breed a variety of horse from wild-big working and miniature. so on. But limits are guickly reached because selection can only work on what is there. you can breed a variety of coats, white brown black mixed, but not green because the info isny there. Each variety has less info from the origianal. you cant produce a clydsdasle by breeding minatures. the info isnt there. so logic states natural selection does not create a uphill process. So as statement A. states and is true natural selection does act on the genetic variations among individuals, it does not create new distinct species but a variety of those already thier. Which is why statement A. begins with "change in the genetic composition of a popolation during successive generations". This i will explain next.
tion needs to add new genetic info which previously did not exist. Granted you can change the genes freguency or ratio of genes that are already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you wont get new info. Natural selection can produce changes in gene freguency but it wont automatically produce a new species only variations of the particualer species. Conseguently chance mutations must occure in a variety of areas in the cell and biochemistry of the organism all at once to create a new species, otherwise natural selection would eliminate it. The difference between the species such as reptiles to mammals or water species to land species is far to great even with chance mutations over a trillion years. All parts of the species must work effeciently together, heart, lungs, appendages,chemical balances must all be together at the same time to function properly. This vast difference in the species groups eliminates any chance of chance mutations truelly working. i will elaberate after my opponants remarks.
This is the beginning iof the last thread, sorry my computor shuts down on me. This genetic change of composition is explained by mutations within the genetic system, this mutation in turn creates new info that over time and thru natural selection crerates a new "kind" of species from the origanal. First there is no known natrual law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical procces or material phenomenon known that can do this. Stated by Dr. Werner Gitt of the germanys federal institute of physics and technology.I will go striaght to DNA Its a fact that 99.9% of mutations are fatal distructive or neutrual, and extremly rare. In mutations it is not whether they are benificial but if it adds new genetic information. So these beneficial mutations must survive in the system and be passed on to the next generatuion and than collect other chance mutations so as to create a specified functional creation, organ limb,eyes stc. Crick co-discoverer of DNA sated the Central dogma-"what is in the body and what happens in the body does not affect the DNE coding- I will go further in debth on next post I will end with a few statements. Evolution.... finished in first post. sorry for the confusion.
Appreciate comments.
tk
Tkster: I think your respondent needs a refresher course in anatomy/physiology, some comparative anatomy, historical geology, organic chemistry and general biology. Darwin did not posit "survival of the fittest." The phrase is attributed to Herbert Spencer. Darwin did like it and adopt it.
"First there is no known natrual law through which matter can give rise to information." Says C. I guess he's never heard of DNA, mutation due to radiation, chemical influences, or just plain old mistakes in Meiosis or Mitosis or an oops in differentiation after cleavage.
I can't imagine that C has ever read Darwin's work, ponderously titled by the way as: "On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties and on the Perpetuation of Species and Varieties by Natural Means of Selection."
The Lamarckian idea that changes in an individual can be passed on has been disproved so often it merits no further response.
I also imagine C doesn't understand phenotype and genotype, or dominant and recessive genes. In fact, there is so much he doesn't understand I would suggest you end your dialogue with him and go have some sweaty sex, read a book, take a walk, anything but continue corresponding with someone who has already made up their minds, is brainwashed beyond belief and misinformed to a staggering degree. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 06:02:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
anything but continue corresponding with someone who has already made up their minds, is brainwashed beyond belief and misinformed to a staggering degree.
The problem is, that it is no longer safe to ignore these people.
They have a very organized political movement that is threatening to undermine science teaching in public schoolrooms.
They have won some victories recently, and are likely to win many more in the current political climate.
This is the most recent.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/
And there are already plenty of places that require public schools to place those moronic disclaimer stickers on their biology textbooks, warning that evolution is "just a theory".
So, this ignorance cannot really be ignored or dismissed as the ramblings of the stupid any longer. We do so at our own peril.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
mgbworks
New Member
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2004 : 21:19:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
anything but continue corresponding with someone who has already made up their minds, is brainwashed beyond belief and misinformed to a staggering degree.
The problem is, that it is no longer safe to ignore these people.
They have a very organized political movement that is threatening to undermine science teaching in public schoolrooms.
They have won some victories recently, and are likely to win many more in the current political climate.
This is the most recent.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/
And there are already plenty of places that require public schools to place those moronic disclaimer stickers on their biology textbooks, warning that evolution is "just a theory".
So, this ignorance cannot really be ignored or dismissed as the ramblings of the stupid any longer. We do so at our own peril.
Dude I agree with you in principle. The actions of these people cannot be ignored. Let's fight them in the courts. Let's contribute to organizations that combat them. Disabuse anyone you know of the notion that these creationist claims have merit. But, to spend the time and energy in a formal debate with a self-proclaimed creationist: I've tried it and found it impossible. Perhaps the causes were shortcomings on my part, a lack of persistence or of tact and patience. I think I'm starting to argue with myself....again. It must be the late hour and my chronic insomnia. Perhaps we can agree to sort of disagree/agree. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 01:15:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by mgbworks
But, to spend the time and energy in a formal debate with a self-proclaimed creationist: I've tried it and found it impossible. Perhaps the causes were shortcomings on my part, a lack of persistence or of tact and patience. I think I'm starting to argue with myself....again. It must be the late hour and my chronic insomnia. Perhaps we can agree to sort of disagree/agree.
It depends on what your goal is but, debates are not impossible, if you keep cool, keep your eyes at the price and do your homework.
You have to understand both evolution theory and creation mythology. You have to understand your opponents arguments and motives.
Don't go in to subjects where you know less than your opponent. If you are going with the bat/fowl argument, you have nothing to contribute.
In a verbal debate in front of a gullible audience a charlatan like Hovind can spew forth so much manure in so little time, that it will take a herculean effort to clean up the mess. (Which will probably bore the audience.)
What was your goal when you debated?
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 03:12:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But, to spend the time and energy in a formal debate with a self-proclaimed creationist: I've tried it and found it impossible.
Yes, it is impossible. But the point is not to get your opponent to admit defeat, because they never will. The idea is to confront their mythology and misinformation with hard facts.
You have to be a very skilled orator to come out on top in a verbal debate against people like Hovind who are extremely skilled at vomiting garbage and making their opponents appear to lose, because you can't possibly counter most of the nonsense.
But, taking these jackasses on in a written debate, for example in a forum or some other moderated way, anyone with a basic knowledge of evolution stands a chance to win a debate. And those, like peptide here, can destroy charlatans like Hovind in a written debate. Hovind, specifically, knows this and always refuses written debates.
But again, the goal is to direct the argument to the possible audience rather than to your opponent. You'll never change the mind of a YEC/creationist with a debate or two. But, you may show some of the people watching/reading along that the creationists are entirely full of shit.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 19:40:21 [Permalink]
|
I wish I could debate Hovind in person. I am ten times funnier than him and have developed a "satiric" set up on Hovind's entire seminar (which he copies out of in his debates). If Hovind thinks being funnier = Win; I'd pummel the guy.
Either way, thanks for the comments but after I refuted him, he lost with poor design. He used theology in response and couldn't ever show any scientific evidence. I am now working on my final rebuttal. Again thanks!
tk |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2004 : 02:17:43 [Permalink]
|
tkster, is this debate available on a public forum?
Just curious.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
