creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

Originally posted by thehumbleone
you still don't understand what I'm getting at do you?

When a mosquito changes into a bee, then I will call that proof.

When an ape changes into a human, then That will be considered proof.

Heck, I think an apple tree changing into an orange tree is far more likely.

And don't tell me "it takes millions of years" blah blah that's your problem, not mine, don't make up excuses for why you can't find the missing links, you're problem again.

Well why didn't you ask for that in the first place instead of asking for evidence of evolution of new species?

Humble, I don't care what you think about evolution or what you think is 'proof', I answer your questions in an attempt to 'deny ignorance' and it's hard work with you.

I've provided links that provide evidence for macroevolution, I've provided the evidence that shows a relationship between chimps and humans, there are many transitional fossils for various major changes, including human evolution. It is enough for most people who understand the biology, which doesn't include you.

cheers.

why can't creationists believe in evolution too? everybody who knows anything about the bible realizes that god is in a place where time does not exist. the world being created in 7 days is just part of an equation because it later goes on to explain that a day to god is like 1,000+ years. anyway, just stating that because evolution exists doesn't defeat the idea that god got the ball rolling and perfectly set evolution in motion. so, by the time of the dawn of man god said "i made you". mkay.

The concept of a 'species' is not solely defined by degree of reproductive isolation. There are multiple definitons of the word species, not all centered or based around reproductive isolation.

In fact, such a simplistic definition of the word breaks down at many levels. You cannot, for example classify any fossils as a different species based on such a definition. Darwins Finches... many of which are classified as different species, can and do interbreed... albeit significantly less frequently than within any group classified as a single species, but using that limited definition the concept breaks down. And in fact the situation may not be all that different from examples of homo sapiens of different 'races' that interbreed; it does occur, just not as frequently as within a particular classification scheme.

In any case, this argument is doomed to go pretty much nowhere... On the one hand you've got a worn-out, cliche Creationist argument, that is: "We've observed no new species formation," pitted against a textbook, predictable, and uninspiring reply listing documented instances of new 'species,' that is likely posted with full knowledge that the opposing side, isn't looking for cases of one mosquito becoming isolated from another mosquito. Seriously, hasn't this particular topic been hashed out in this forum alone 1000's of times, not too mention the hundreds if not thousand's of other forums out there?

Both arguments ignore fundamental mysteries re: the origins of life. On the one hand the Creationist's more-or-less blow off the undeniable fact that fossils contained with earth's crust do in fact show a progression. The progression from less to more organized, from smaller to larger (to a point), and from serialized to specialized is an undeniable fact of the Earth's history.

Similarly, poo pooing the notion that stasis appears to be the norm for natural selection, and that species change, in the sense of major morphological innovation isn't something we can observe does nothing to stregthen the argument of the typical 'evolution defender.' The other notion that seemingly functions in opposition to pretty much all available evidence, is the notion that major evolutionary innovation is the result of 'copying errors' and 'stochastic accidents.' Trying hard to sell an idea that not only doesn't make intuitive sense, and is further not supported by everything we know about genetics tends to alienate people.

If people on both sides would perhaps familiarize themselves about what's actually being found out about genomes, genomic change many of these ID/Evolution arguments would be moot points.

Originally posted by kallikak
The concept of a 'species' is not solely defined by degree of reproductive isolation. There are multiple definitons of the word species, not all centered or based around reproductive isolation.

Do you think it would be worth my time outlining the subtle differences between the various conceptions of species (around 26 at the moment) for humbleone?

Heheh.

Mayr's rather simplified conception is sufficient here - reproductive isolation, common niche & gene pool.

ABE:

It would be nice to see you expand on this...

The other notion that seemingly functions in opposition to pretty much all available evidence, is the notion that major evolutionary innovation is the result of 'copying errors' and 'stochastic accidents.' Trying hard to sell an idea that not only doesn't make intuitive sense, and is further not supported by everything we know about genetics tends to alienate people.

But one quick point - Intuitive sense has nothing to do with science. It was intuitive that the sun orbits the earth, we know otherwise. Intuition and gut-feelings are great for quick and dirty decisions, and good currency in the realm of woo, not for objective science.

cheers.




[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Do you think it would be worth my time outlining the subtle differences between the various conceptions of species (around 26 at the moment) for humbleone?

No... I don't think that would be productive. However, neither do I think that pointing out that occassionally populations become isolated reproductively, due to either physical or genetic constraints, as evidence of speciation does much to address his issue. It's not the point he's trying to make, and doesn't address it.

The point he's trying to make - and whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant - is that no major transitions between what could be described as 'kinds' has been observed. It can be, and often is, inferred from fossil evidence, etc. but has not been observed directly.

Perhaps a more productive approach would be to find out exactly what this person does think the fossil record is evidence for. This might be a good starting point. If the person says that the devil put fossils in there to deceive man, or that God put them there to give the appearance of age, then you can pretty much chalk it up to a lost cause. If they come back with a halfway plausible explanation, perhaps the best thing to do would be address the explanation directly. If they have no explanation, then you can rest assured that the person has pretty much done little to no reading about the topic, except the Creationist website they looked at 5 minutes prior to posting, and like the first instance, your continued participation is a waste of time.

Otherwise this thread is just another pissing match of "evolution is full of holes" vs. "no it's not," and that's been done to death.

Mayr's rather simplified conception is sufficient here - reproductive isolation, common niche & gene pool.

Not really. It's distinctly not what humble is referring to when he uses the word species. Perhaps he shouldn't be using the word species... perhaps Family would be better or even order... however, it's clear that when humble says no speciation has been observed, he's not referring to the change from one species of mosquito to another.. s/he is talking about the transition from one morphological type to another.

Originally posted by kallikak
Not really. It's distinctly not what humble is referring to when he uses the word species. Perhaps he shouldn't be using the word species... perhaps Family would be better or even order... however, it's clear that when humble says no speciation has been observed, he's not referring to the change from one species of mosquito to another.. s/he is talking about the transition from one morphological type to another.

And I did note that I thought he was conflating 'kind' with 'species'. As that is the normal issue in such discussions.

He stated that only 'evolution within species' has been observed - microevolution. However, new species have been observed, as have novel mutations and new functions.

I've discussed this on various boards and the same issues come up every time. Maybe I should have pinned him down for what he meant earlier (like I did with 'theory'). But, 'species' does tend to be viewed at a lower level than 'family'.

Otherwise, all hominidae are one species, and I don't think he would support that, no?

Originally posted by melatonin
But one quick point - Intuitive sense has nothing to do with science. It was intuitive that the sun orbits the earth, we know otherwise. Intuition and gut-feelings are great for quick and dirty decisions, and good currency in the realm of woo, not for objective science.

The point about intuitive sense was only to highlight that which isn't observed about evolution, that is that evolution is the product of 'accidents,' and that the genome is some hapless victim, instead of an active participant in its own genetic future. Intuition is the stuff that hypotheses are made of however, and thus, intuition is an essential component of objective science. I bring up intuitive sense only as peripheral highlight, and not a direct objection. It's easier to sell a person on an idea that makes intuitive sense than one that is hard to grasp.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
you still don't understand what I'm getting at do you?

When a mosquito changes into a bee, then I will call that proof.

When an ape changes into a human, then That will be considered proof.

it won't
things in the future won't evolve into something that already exists

you seem to misunderstand the term

SPECIES

there are hundreds of species of mosquito
when 1 species of mosquito becomes an entirely different species that can only reproduce with members of the new species to produce fertile offspring, they are a new organism


Heck, I think an apple tree changing into an orange tree is far more likely.

And don't tell me "it takes millions of years" blah blah that's your problem, not mine, don't make up excuses for why you can't find the missing links, you're problem again.

um, i can point to a link that could one day be seen as missing if no enough of them fossilize to be found
humanity
you're arguing that because we don't have a specimen for EVERY SPECIES THAT HAS EVER LIVED
evolution is false
that is a fairly ignorant argument when you learn how fossilization works

Originally posted by kallikak
The point about intuitive sense was only to highlight that which isn't observed about evolution, that is that evolution is the product of 'accidents,' and that the genome is some hapless victim, instead of an active participant in its own genetic future. Intuition is the stuff that hypotheses are made of however, and thus, intuition is an essential component of objective science. I bring up intuitive sense only as peripheral highlight, and not a direct objection. It's easier to sell a person on an idea that makes intuitive sense than one that is hard to grasp.

I agree that common-sense ideas are easier to get over, but if it is hard to grasp do we just not bother?

Intuition may help guide hypotheses, but hypotheses are just unsupported assertions. Some will be based in observation and previous findings, others are just pure hot-air.

I'd honestly like to see some scientific evidence showing the genome actively drives it's own genetic future...

Originally posted by melatonin
And I did note that I thought he was conflating 'kind' with 'species'. As that is the normal issue in such discussions.

He stated that only 'evolution within species' has been observed - microevolution. However, new species have been observed, as have novel mutations and new functions.

Yes, well there does seem to be either some confusion re: species, or just some casual tossing around of the word. I would again point out that "species" you say have been observed are not the types of transitions that are likely to satisfy your average, garden-variety Creationist. You sound like you're familiar with these arguments, surely you're aware that the Creationist literature tends to address precisely the kind of speciations you cite. IOW, the average, Garden-Variety Creationist expects you to come back with that TO page.

You're inadvertently fulfilling prophecy

The same thing with the 'novel mutations and new functions.' The issues of antibiotic resistance, general drug-resistance, and xenobiotic degradation are generally dealt with in Creationist literature, and are expected comebacks. By using them, you inadvertently supporting what's written in Creationist literature.

I've discussed this on various boards and the same issues come up every time. Maybe I should have pinned him down for what he meant earlier (like I did with 'theory'). But, 'species' does tend to be viewed at a lower level than 'family'.

Personally, and I know my opinion doesn't mean squat around here, I think the best approach is to pin people down on what they do think something is evidence of... It gives you something tangible to discuss.

Otherwise, all hominidae are one species, and I don't think he would support that, no?

Probably not, and all of these are reasons why I generally try to avoid these discussions.

Originally posted by melatonin
I agree that common-sense ideas are easier to get over, but if it is hard to grasp do we just not bother?

Of course not. I don't think I suggested we give anything up... I just pointed out why I brought up 'intuitive sense.'

Intuition may help guide hypotheses, but hypotheses are just unsupported assertions. Some will be based in observation and previous findings, others are just pure hot-air.

Hence intuition is an essential part of the scientific process.

I'd honestly like to see some scientific evidence showing the genome actively drives it's own genetic future...

Surely you are aware of the vast multitude of DNA repair systems present in even the most 'primitive' cell types. Cells maintain a wide variety of such repair mechanisms, including mismatch repair, base-excision repair, photoreactivation, non-homologous end joining, to mention a few. Indeed, cells maintain a remarkable degree of genomic integrity.

Additionally, prokaryotic cells are known to be very promiscous, swapping genetic information with close relatives and completely unrelated genera. Prokaryotic cells actively maintain selectively beneficial genes when required, and dump them off when they don't. That is when genes aren't needed prokaryotes remove them. IOW, they control their genetic destiny by allowing certain genes to increase in frequency, and others to decrease.

The example of antibiotic resistance is a perfect example that stands in opposition Darwinian evolution. Antibiotic resistance isn't acquired gradually, often it's acquired in one single event. In fact, many antibiotic resistance genes can be acquired in a single conjugation event.

Indeed, the cell maintains many genes specifically for the restructuring of genomic information. This would appear to be the entire 'purpose' for the existence of transposable elements... the facilitation of genomic arrangement.

Indeed many of the examples often cited as being examples of evolution are related to recombination. The nylon degrading enzymes are re-arrangements of repeat sequences, for example.

Also... entire new classes of polymerases... mutator polymerases have been discovered. These polymerases are often expressed in response to stress, and may increase variation at certain loci inconjuction with transcription factors and other related proteins, as well as within epigenetic constraints.

The entire field of epigenetics, including methylation, chromatin remodeling, and chromatin condensations are testaments to the genomes regulation of it's own future.

What do you think they're evidence of?

[edit on 31-1-2007 by kallikak]

Originally posted by kallikak
Hence intuition is an essential part of the scientific process.

Aye, it can be, but to become science it needs to be backed by evidence, otherwise it is just speculation. In many instances the intuition is shown to be wrong at the first hurdle.

Thus it doesn't matter what intuitive sense tells you if the evidence suggests otherwise. Without evidence it is just philosophy.

Surely you are aware of the vast multitude of DNA repair systems present in even the most 'primitive' cell types. Cells maintain a wide variety of such repair mechanisms, including mismatch repair, base-excision repair, photoreactivation, non-homologous end joining, to mention a few. Indeed, cells maintain a remarkable degree of genomic integrity.

Yeah, I am. But mutations still happen. If the repair mechanisms were 100% perfect there would be no variation for selection. I probably possessed a hundred or so from birth. I hope most were pretty inocuous, haha.

Additionally, prokaryotic cells are known to be very promiscous, swapping genetic information with close relatives and completely unrelated genera. Prokaryotic cells actively maintain selectively beneficial genes when required, and dump them off when they don't. That is when genes aren't needed prokaryotes remove them. IOW, they control their genetic destiny by allowing certain genes to increase in frequency, and others to decrease.

So genetic variation is produced by numerous processes including horizontal gene transfer. Natural selection acts on the produced variation.

Genes that are not essential are open to genetic change. Beneficial mutations are selected, detrimental mutations are removed by natural selection.

If beneficial genes are no longer beneficial, they are open to mutation. Whether genetic changes are beneficial is largely determined by environment.

Changes in frequency of alleles = evolution.

The example of antibiotic resistance is a perfect example that stands in opposition Darwinian evolution. Antibiotic resistance isn't acquired gradually, often it's acquired in one single event. In fact, many antibiotic resistance genes can be acquired in a single conjugation event.

Yet, natural selection is essential and so is genetic variation. Darwinian evolution is one aspect of ToE and recombination, genetic drift, evo-devo etc also play a part. Changes in the rate of evolution have been noted and the idea of evolution as having periods of stasis and change are well-established - hence punk-eeq.

Indeed, the cell maintains many genes specifically for the restructuring of genomic information. This would appear to be the entire 'purpose' for the existence of transposable elements... the facilitation of genomic arrangement.

Indeed many of the examples often cited as being examples of evolution are related to recombination. The nylon degrading enzymes are re-arrangements of repeat sequences, for example.

And when this was performed in the past, the unlucky organism suffered the downside of natural selection. When it occured in the presence of nylon it became somewhat beneficial. The nylonase gene was a novel allele as it now survives in an organism. Thus the environment is important to evolution and recombination is an evolutionary mechanism.

Also... entire new classes of polymerases... mutator polymerases have been discovered. These polymerases are often expressed in response to stress, and may increase variation at certain loci inconjuction with transcription factors and other related proteins, as well as within epigenetic constraints.

The entire field of epigenetics, including methylation, chromatin remodeling, and chromatin condensations are testaments to the genomes regulation of it's own future.

What do you think they're evidence of?

And as far as I know these act from environmental triggers and are another mechanism to drive adaptation. In fact, it may be viewed as a mechanism that enables 'memory' of environment.

Correct me if I'm wildly wrong on anything as genetics is most certainly not my forte.

Anyway, yeah, I just wanted to see where you were going with the 'genome as driver' idea, I have no issue with Dawkins' idea of selfish genes and have no problem with organisms having epigenetic mechanisms that support evolution. ABE: I was just hoping not to see the idea of conscious genes...

It's probably just as correct to suggest the environment drives evolution from natural selection to epigenetic effects. ABE: An interesting fact was pointed out by one of my own type (a cognitive neurosci.) a while back, in that under Dembski's defintion of intelligence, NS is intelligent - has the ability to select choices and a degree of trail and error.

Essentially, evolution has many mechanisms that allow adaptation to the environment. I also noted earlier evolution was more than RM & NS (drift etc).

[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, it can be, but to become science it needs to be backed by evidence, otherwise it is just speculation. In many instances the intuition is shown to be wrong at the first hurdle.

Hence, my description 'an integral part of the scientific process.

Yeah, I am. But mutations still happen. If the repair mechanisms were 100% perfect there would be no variation for selection. I probably possessed a hundred or so from birth. I hope most were pretty inocuous, haha.

Not true. The presence of mutator polymerases, polymerases that purposely induce mutations within the genome would provide all the variation required. Furthermore, in a sexually reproducing organism, there are lots of other ways to generate genetic variation that don't involve mutation.

So genetic variation is produced by numerous processes including horizontal gene transfer. Natural selection acts on the produced variation.

Yep.

Genes that are not essential are open to genetic change. Beneficial mutations are selected, detrimental mutations are removed by natural selection.

No. I am talking about something COMPLETELY different. I am talking about active removal of non-beneficial sequences wholesale, not inactive expression, repressed expression, or whatever. Straight up removal of the genes. I'm not sure how much molecular biology technique you're familiar with, but it's the reason that you have to harvest selective bacterial cultures within like 12 hours, and the reason you've got to keep genetically modified plants under selective pressure until transgenes are stably integrated. Bacteria routinely acquire and dispose of large chunks of DNA. This is completely different than what you've described above.

If beneficial genes are no longer beneficial, they are open to mutation. Whether genetic changes are beneficial is largely determined by environment.

Your standard forum response isn't relevant here. I wasn't talking about mutation, I was talking about large scale genetic modification.... wholesale removal of genes that pose a conditional selective benefit. The question wasn't one of mutation, but large scale genetic modification.

Changes in frequency of alleles = evolution.

This isn't relevant to your discussion with me. I don't deny evolution occurs, and I've not said anything about changing of allele frequencies. What I am talking about is different than simply changing an allele frequency.

Yet, natural selection is essential and so is genetic variation. Darwinian evolution is one aspect of ToE and recombination, genetic drift, evo-devo etc also play a part. Changes in the rate of evolution have been noted and the idea of evolution as having periods of stasis and change are well-established - hence punk-eeq.

Personally, I wouldn't call punctuated equilibrium 'well-established,' it's out there as a theory, but isn't the predominant theory with respect to evolution. Most scenarios are still centered around the notion of gradual change. What do changes in the rate of evolution have to do with this discussion? Furthermore, my comment didn't address recombination, genetic-drift, or development. It was simply a comment reiterating the fact that antibiotic resistance doesn't arise via anything resembling Darwinian evolution.

And when this was performed in the past, the unlucky organism suffered the downside of natural selection. When it occured in the presence of nylon it became somewhat beneficial.

Not true. The presence of the nylonase genes provides no selective disadvantage. If the genes weren't required or useful, they were simply eliminated. The organism that adapted to degrade nylon isn't obligated to consume only nylon. It maintains standard biochemical pathways, which the nylonase enzymes supply with substrate. The nylonase genes aren't located on a chromosome, and are thus easily disposed of when there is no selective advantage to possessing them. The unlucky bug didn't suffer the downside of NS, it just rid itself of a useless plasmid.

And as far as I know these act from environmental triggers and are another mechanism to drive adaptation. In fact, it may be viewed as a mechanism that enables 'memory' of environment.

Exactly. The genome plays an active, not passive, role in it's genetic future so to speak. It responds to the environment at least in the form of epigenetic changes, and induction of loci specific mutations.

Anyway, yeah, I just wanted to see where you were going with the 'genome as driver' idea, I have no issue with Dawkins' idea of selfish genes and have no problem with organisms having epigenetic mechanisms that support evolution. It's probably just as correct to suggest the environment drives evolution from natural selection to epigenetic effects.

Personally... not a fan of Dawkins... his early stuff was okay... but he's always taken science into realms where I don't think it belongs. I don't agree with the idea of the 'Selfish Gene' for a number of reasons including, genes aren't the units of selection, genes don't actually do anything, and it more-or-less seems to ignore the idea of linkage to name a few.

Essentially, evolution has many mechanisms that allow adaptation to the environment. I also noted earlier evolution was more than RM & NS (drift etc).

Allowing adaptation and changing in response to are disparate ideas in my mind. Personally, I think RM factors very insignificantly into evolution. I think most evolutionarily significant change is mediated via cellular biochemistry

alright
how can you say that genetic mutation doesn't exist?
they've tested people in labs
we have observed children having genes that aren't found in either of its parents

that's a mutation
how else would you explain it?

I can't decide if this is directed at me or not. If not please ignore.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
alright
how can you say that genetic mutation doesn't exist?

I've said no such thing.

they've tested people in labs
we have observed children having genes that aren't found in either of its parents

No one has genes that aren't present in their parents. What I think you mean to say is that people possess alleles that are unique to them, not the same as their parents. Many of these variations are the product of recombination.

that's a mutation

[sarcasm]No Kidding? Well you learn something everyday[sarcasm]

how else would you explain it?

Since I've not claimed mutation doesn't exist, I find myself not needing to explain anything.

Originally posted by kallikak
Not true. The presence of mutator polymerases, polymerases that purposely induce mutations within the genome would provide all the variation required. Furthermore, in a sexually reproducing organism, there are lots of other ways to generate genetic variation that don't involve mutation.

So repair mechanisms are 100% perfect then?

Mutations are not important? Do mutator polymerases produce 100% beneficial mutations?

No. I am talking about something COMPLETELY different. I am talking about active removal of non-beneficial sequences wholesale, not inactive expression, repressed expression, or whatever. Straight up removal of the genes. I'm not sure how much molecular biology technique you're familiar with, but it's the reason that you have to harvest selective bacterial cultures within like 12 hours, and the reason you've got to keep genetically modified plants under selective pressure until transgenes are stably integrated. Bacteria routinely acquire and dispose of large chunks of DNA. This is completely different than what you've described above.

I know very basic genetics/mol biol and am not ashamed to admit it. When I got my first BSc in chemistry, I avoided biochemistry like the plague. Heheh.

So, you'll need to be clearer than just saying they 'actively maintain beneficial genes' and 'large chunks of DNA'. Are we talking about frameshifts, duplications, deletions, inversions, translocations, and horizontal processes here?

Your standard forum response isn't relevant here. I wasn't talking about mutation, I was talking about large scale genetic modification.... wholesale removal of genes that pose a conditional selective benefit. The question wasn't one of mutation, but large scale genetic modification.

What kind of modifications?

I'm willing to learn, I ain't no humbleone.

This isn't relevant to your discussion with me. I don't deny evolution occurs, and I've not said anything about changing of allele frequencies. What I am talking about is different than simply changing an allele frequency.

You said that these genes will increase in frequency. I understand the difference between alleles and genes, so are you saying that the increase the actual number of the same genes? Is this gene duplication?

Personally, I wouldn't call punctuated equilibrium 'well-established,' it's out there as a theory, but isn't the predominant theory with respect to evolution. Most scenarios are still centered around the notion of gradual change. What do changes in the rate of evolution have to do with this discussion? Furthermore, my comment didn't address recombination, genetic-drift, or development. It was simply a comment reiterating the fact that antibiotic resistance doesn't arise via anything resembling Darwinian evolution.

Well, I think it's generally accepted that evolution undergoes periods of general stasis where no major changes occur. It's been around a few decades and hasn't been shown to be wrong. Just not an issue for ToE.

So vertical evolution plays no part in antibiotic resistance? Mutations are not a pathway that can lead to resistance? A mutation rate of 10-8 cannot produce even a single point mutation that confers resistance? That an initial resistance could not be enhanced by further mutation?

Evolution of drug resistance in experimental populations of Candida albicans.Cowen LE, Sanglard D, Calabrese D, Sirjusingh C, Anderson JB, Kohn LM.
J Bacteriol. 2000 Mar;182(6):1515-22.

Adaptation to inhibitory concentrations of the antifungal agent fluconazole was monitored in replicated experimental populations founded from a single, drug-sensitive cell of the yeast Candida albicans and reared over 330 generations. The concentration of fluconazole was maintained at twice the MIC in six populations; no fluconazole was added to another six populations. All six replicate populations grown with fluconazole adapted to the presence of drug as indicated by an increase in MIC; none of the six populations grown without fluconazole showed any change in MIC. In all populations evolved with drug, increased fluconazole resistance was accompanied by increased resistance to ketoconazole and itraconazole; these populations contained ergosterol in their cell membranes and were amphotericin sensitive. The increase in fluconazole MIC in the six populations evolved with drug followed different trajectories, and these populations achieved different levels of resistance, with distinct overexpression patterns of four genes involved in azole resistance: the ATP-binding cassette transporter genes, CDR1 and CDR2; the gene encoding the target enzyme of the azoles in the ergosterol biosynthetic pathway, ERG11; and the major facilitator gene, MDR1. Selective sweeps in these populations were accompanied by additional genomic changes with no known relationship to drug resistance: loss of heterozygosity in two of the five marker genes assayed and alterations in DNA fingerprints and electrophoretic karyotypes. These results show that chance, in the form of mutations that confer an adaptive advantage, is a determinant in the evolution of azole drug resistance in experimental populations of C. albicans.

Chance, mutations, & natural selection. Looks like a darwinian process to me. [ABE: also I know this is candida but the process in bacteria would be the same, no?]

Not true. The presence of the nylonase genes provides no selective disadvantage. If the genes weren't required or useful, they were simply eliminated. The organism that adapted to degrade nylon isn't obligated to consume only nylon. It maintains standard biochemical pathways, which the nylonase enzymes supply with substrate. The nylonase genes aren't located on a chromosome, and are thus easily disposed of when there is no selective advantage to possessing them. The unlucky bug didn't suffer the downside of NS, it just rid itself of a useless plasmid.

Aye, your likely right. I did remember reading something about how the nylonase gene resulted in reduction in efficacy of it's normal pathway. I was probably mistaken.

So the nylonase genes were not produced by any sort of mutation?

Allowing adaptation and changing in response to are disparate ideas in my mind. Personally, I think RM factors very insignificantly into evolution. I think most evolutionarily significant change is mediated via cellular biochemistry

Well, of course, it's not me you need to take this up with. such a battle will take place where it belongs - in the literature.

I think you're wasted on here though, Kallikak. You should come onto the evcforum.net. Loads of practicing scientists, some who are a bit more mol bio. literate than I, who would appreciate your viewpoint - we are pretty short of informed theistic opinions.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by spiritconnections
I have said nothing in support of the likes of Sylvia Brown - why are you bringing her into this conversation? Would you like me to bring in a wacko fringe from the scientific community as representative of your stance?

The power behind all speciation is the Mind of the Spirit (in my opinion).

Mind of what spirit? Does this spirit cause mutations? So really rather than 'goddidit', you say 'themindofthespiritdidit'.

Mutations are the result of an imperfect copying method and other chemical and biological mechanisms. Does the 'mind of the spirit' underlie chemistry and physics? I always thought it was Nac-Mac Feegles behind intelligent falling.

Sylvia Brown is a psychic who 'channels' spirits like you claim to do. She makes a lot of dosh from her supposed abilities. She is well-known and no more whacko than most other people who 'commune' with spirits.

And, yeah, science makes no more contribution to people's lives than woo. When a person has a health condition, it's always better to see a spiritualist than a medical doctor who bases their treatment on effective science-based methods. When we want to figure out who commited a crime, Psychics provide as good an answer than that from forensic scientists; Building a bridge? Mission to Mars? Curing AIDS? New neurological therapies? Explaining Global Warming? IVF? Consult your local spiritualist.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

Ok. I'm not going down the road of condescension you are traveling. I'll just answer your points to the best of my ability.

The Mind of the Universal Spirit is what I am referring to - what most religions call God, but not as he is confined in any modern religion. Mutations are just as much a part of the manifestation of Spirit as anything else. There is nothing good or bad in the universe - simply existence. A mutation is most likely the result of the karmic system, and is just the way Nature flows.

I do channel spirits and ET entities, and would never be ashamed to say so. Many people claim to do the same, some honest and some not. I am not here to defend or trash Sylvia - she is not even relevant to the conversation. We are talking about creation and evolution, not channeling spirits or other entities. I refuse to make judgments on people I do not personally know - you included.

When a person has a medical condition, it is important to see a medical doctor and a leader of that person's faith or an alternative practitioner. I think I have been pretty clear throughout this thread that I am certainly no enemy of science. It has its place as does spirituality. Balance is the key - not extremism.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by spiritconnections]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
alright
how can you say that genetic mutation doesn't exist?
they've tested people in labs
we have observed children having genes that aren't found in either of its parents

that's a mutation
how else would you explain it?

your overlooking a key piece to your argument. Whats another word for mutation? Wouldnt you say "micro evolution?" See, I do believe in creation, but I am not threatened by the theory of evolution in the least.

Originally posted by spiritconnections

Ok. I'm not going down the road of condescension you are traveling. I'll just answer your points to the best of my ability.

That's cool and sorry for coming across as obtuse. I just think trying to show equivalence between a massively successful and productive form of gaining knowledge and improving the human condition (but not always), and subjective concepts such as spirituality is rather weak.

I understand some may want to do so, but they will do so whilst enjoying the benefits of all the people who work damned hard to produce tried and tested knowledge.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by spiritconnections

Ok. I'm not going down the road of condescension you are traveling. I'll just answer your points to the best of my ability.

That's cool and sorry for coming across as obtuse. I just think trying to show equivalence between a massively successful and productive form of gaining knowledge and improving the human condition (but not always), and subjective concepts such as spirituality is rather weak.

I understand some may want to do so, but they will do so whilst enjoying the benefits of all the people who work damned hard to produce tried and tested knowledge.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree (pardon the cliche~)

I have nothing against science, and am actually enthralled by new scientific discoveries. But you have to admit that there are some pretty brilliant theogians teaching in prestigious universities all around the world. I would be hesitant to call them deluded.