Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

This ["A transitional form must be transitional between the phyla at the contemporary time of the split between the phyla"] is bogus filler and you know it…

Vade, I think you know me well enough not to just quote out of context, which is what you have done by ignoring the obvious. Please re-read the quote. (We will bore each other and wind up on crazy tangents by spelling things out)

What are you talking about here? I pointed out precursors where your site put up "selected" data to show there are none. The demonstration is bogus. A distinct phylum is generally considered to be a unique body plan. I am changing nothing. (emphasis mine)

Plan? There is no plan… is there?

The Cambrian phyla are much more like each other than their modern descendants are like each other. There's a similar lack of "derived" characteristics. That is, they're all rather small and simple. Even the vertebrates (early jawless fish similar to lampreys) are tiny and simple. It's the picture you'd expect from animals that are related, animals that are only recently diverged from each other.

What? An amoeba is less different from a shellfish than an orangutan and a man’s ability to go to the moon – and that proves evolution folks!

You have a secret yearning to be saved from ignorance and superstition. ;)

I believe this to be true for us all…

It’s true that I am a Christian, but I am not a Creationist (at least not in the obnoxious swagger that the term is thrown around here – meaning those who fear science are Creationists)… I am readily attentive to scientific data. It does not scare me in the least.

Can the same be said of someone trying to justify his or her beliefs by way of evolution?

evolutionists can never point to a single species which has clearly transformed itself to another more complex one. -me-

Ever hear of eohippus?

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clear up another evolutionist lie. Eohippus is also known by the name of hyracotherium, and for good reason. Hyrocotherium was the name given to it by its discoverer. Reason he gave it that name is that it most clearly resembled an animal from a totally different genus than the horse - the hyrax:

* Totally unlike modern horses, both morphologically and in habitat. Some scientists believe that Hyracotherium is simply an extinct subspecies of Hyrax. Robert Owen named the first specimen "Hyracotherium" because of its resemblance to the genus Hyra x (cony). When the error margin is taken into account for fleshing out the skeleton of Hyracotherium (left top) into a fleshed out photo (left middle), it becomes almost identical to the modern Hyrax. (Even closer than pictured (left middle). Some evolutionists draw Hyracotherium as looking like a mini horse. This is way outside the error margin of the bone to fur guess.
* Arched back that stood about 16 inches to the soldier about the size of a fox terrier
* Had 18 pairs of ribs with short neck, snout & legs and a long tail.
* Each toe has a pad like dogs. Three toes on hind feet, four on front feet with a shorter leg/longer head to body ratio compared to horses. Tiny stubs (vestiges) of the 1st and 2nd toes.
* Major bones not fused, legs both flexible and rotatable
* Short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between front and cheek teeth).
* Low-crowned teeth unlike horses and more teeth than horses. Teeth sets: 1 canine, 3 incisors, 4 premolars, 3 grinding molars in each side of each jaw. Teeth of a typical omnivorous browser.

From: Textbook Fraud where you can see plenty of pictures, bones, and scientific testimony showing that this was not a horse.

Seems that the evolutionists, in their total desperation to give evidence for what there is no evidence committed another one of their paleontological frauds, 'borrowing' bones from one species to use in another to prove their point. One has to wonder what kind of scientists, what kind of scientific theory this evolution is that it needs to perpetrate so many frauds.

The existence of God is outside the realm of science, and therefore irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant. And in fact, your statement is an admission that evolution can never be proven - science cannot deny God and so long as you atheists cannot prove that God does not exist you must always deal with the question 'what is evolution or was it God'.

However, myself and the anti-evolutonists here are not saying that 'God did it' therefore evolution is false. We are dealing with what science can deal with, with evidence. And guess what, you are losing, losing badly and that is why you are trying to dismiss alternatives with rhetorical nonsense.

I am convinced that the horse series is more wishful thinking than science. Checkout this url.
http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-horses.htm

It's not a Creationist site.

You can say that in spades! TalkOrigins is the craddle of evolutionist bull duty and even they do not dare to support the horse series! The following from the link is totally prescious!:

I could have forgiven Kathleen Hunt for preferring what appears to be the rational theory, had it not been for her casual falsification and misrepresentation of the scientific facts in the name of compiling a "FAQ". There is NO scientific evidence at all that the fossils found are connected in a SEQUENCE except a general anatomical resemblance which, scientifically, is almost trivial. And there are no valid examples known of SPECIATION, but there is plenty of scientific evidence of genetic homeostasis -- a natural tendency of species to resist change and to become sterile when put under pressure to inbreed.

The picture is trying to prove that there are gaps at the bases of the phyla.

Perhaps because there are such gaps - everywhere? Not just phyla - the Cambrian is the Grand Canyo n of evolution when it comes to gaps. The gaps are everywhere. Where are the fossils connecting all the mammal genuses together? Where are the fossil connecting the man and chimp? Anywhere you look the gaps are humongous. Not even by its own chosen method can evolution give evidence for itself.

Regarding eohippus:

Seems that the evolutionists, in their total desperation to give evidence for what there is no evidence committed another one of their paleontological frauds, 'borrowing' bones from one species to use in another to prove their point.

I've heard a lot about eohippus and how it's the best or one of the best examples of evolution. After reading quite a few articles on this topic I can't believe the eohippus is one of the best examples of evolution. The eohippus appears to be just another fraud. Strong words, yet how else can it be described after looking at the available evidence?

What I find so disturbing is that there are some genuine and intelligent folks here that think evolution is a solid interpretation of the evidence; yet when you start looking at the individual cases that support the theory, you have to shake your head in amazement and wonder, why do folks believe in evolution? Some might say you have to connect the dots, yet the dots aren't even dots, they're scattered pieces of unrelated evidence. As usual, I'm sure someone is going to come along and try to change the subject here where objectivity and context are key.

Do the evolutionists have a better example of evolution than the apparent eohippus fraud?

Actually there is really no disagreement, what there is is the evolutionists being unwilling to admit to a very obvious fact you cannot add by subtraction.

I missed your above post until now. You're right - you cannot add by subtraction, well, you can add by subtraction by using a negative number, lest anyone acuse me of anything here. Maybe those who buy the theory of evolution add with negative numbers...

From my understanding of evolution, it does indeed require new genetic information to be passed along unless the earliest organisms already contained the genetic material. Does anybody hold to the position that the earliest organisms already had the new genetic information? Would you explain how natural selection destroys genetic information? From what you're saying, whatever survives, best or not, it's not new genetic information and therefore does not support evolution.

say that evolution is false and we can go on to other things.

It is abundantly clear that you have so little faith in your ID theory (whatever exactly that may be).

I surmise your faith in God, must be very tenuous as well since you are so utterly desperate to find “proof” of Him by attacking evolution (the ONLY theory which explains the biological data – the uncontested champion until someone else comes along with a better one).

Believe it or not, I actually pity you Gore3000.

If it does indeed require new genetic information

It has well been shown, in literally hundreds of peer reviewed publications, that new genetic information (produced by mutation) can arise in the face of a selective pressure. For decades microbiologists have observed spontaneous generation of gene amplifications and beneficial mutations in bacteria under limiting growth conditions (I provided some of these regarding germs, yeast, and flies in the previous thread.)

Here is perhaps a more illustrative example for how an entire metabolic pathway can arise by spontaneous mutation.

A series of experiments which began in the early 80’s demonstrated how bacteria grown in the presence of lactose evolved an entire system of lactose utilization consisting of (1) changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate (lactose), (2) alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme that allows the lactose to enter the cell(3). All of this via our friend - spontaneous random mutation (Don't believe the hype - its not ALL bad).

FEMS Microbiol Lett 1999 May 1;174(1):1-8

Mol Biol Evol 1998 Aug;15(8):1055-61

Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7;20(14):4042-9

Thanks for the links. I read the intro to the most recent link but they're asking $30 to download the entire piece. The next recent link is 7 pages so I'll read that tomorrow when my head is more clear. The last link is pretty short, about the same size as the intro to the first link. It's definitely not my field of expertise but I can understand most of it.

In what way do you think the information at the above links help your position, where your position is the context of post #1166:

RWN: Yes, except you leave out how the organisms with the fittest genes survive. The "best" genes get through the filter.
G3K: As with your friend, you do not address the point made by me and in no way try to refute it. You just keep repeating the evolutionist mantra which I refuted in my post:
G3K: even if such a struggle were occurring, destruction of organisms and their genetic material, is not and cannot be the source of new genetic material which is what evolutionists moronically state. No 4 -2 does not equal 6. 4 -2 = 2 and you do not get new traits by destroying traits which are in the genetic pool of a species. Never.
G3K: No matter how you slice it you cannot get addition by subtraction, which is the moronic statement which evolutionists keep making. You need new genetic material for evolution to be true, not destruction of it. It is interesting that the examples given by evolutionists as proof of evolution always involve destruction of genetic material. You cannot get from a bacteria to a human without new genetic material.

In what way do you think the information at the above links help your position, where your position is the context of post #1166:-you

You need new genetic material for evolution to be true, not destruction of it.-G3K

I just showed you how new genetic material can arise. Natural selection now takes over (chooses from both preexisting alelles AND new genetic information).

Below is the entire text of the three links you gave as "proof" that mutations add information. In all the articles all we see are could be's perhapses, may be's. In not a single case do we see an experiment which added a new working gene. In none of the cases do we see a mutation adding additional information. All we see is mutations perhaps replacing existing amino acids to enable the processing of lactose. Note on the first one how exact the changes have to be "Experimental studies suggested that in the 3126 bp coding region those two substitutions were the only mutations capable of increasing activity toward lactose sufficiently to permit growth." There was no new DNA created by these experiments, all they show is that IF (big if) the differences seen between the genes were due to evolutionary mutation, the mutations were favorable. It does not show that new genes were created, that these new genes mutated, that these new genes were added to the genome of the species.

Clearly the articles you refer to do not answer the question, no wonder you did not post the articles where all could see them and instead linked to them hoping no one would look at exactly what they said.

Experimental evolution of Ebg enzyme provides clues about the evolution of catalysis and to evolutionary potential.

Hall BG.

Biology Dept., University of Rochester, NY 14627, USA. drbh@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

The ebg (evolved beta-galactosidase) operon of Escherichia coli has been used since 1974 as a model system to dynamically study the evolutionary processes which have led to catalytic efficiency and substrate specificity in enzymes. Wild-type ebg beta-galactosidase, encoded by ebgA, is a catalytically feeble enzyme that does not hydrolyze lactose or other beta-galactosidase efficiently enough to permit growth on those substrates. Each of two specific base substitutions at widely separated sites increases catalytic activity sufficiently to permit growth, and the combination of the two mutations further increases catalytic effectiveness and expands the substrate range of the enzyme in a non-additive fashion. Experimental studies suggested that in the 3126 bp coding region those two substitutions were the only mutations capable of increasing activity toward lactose sufficiently to permit growth. Alignment of EbgA with the LacZ beta-galactosidase showed that both mutations were in active site amino acids. Multiple alignment and phylogenetic analysis of EbgA, LacZ, and 12 other related beta-galactosidases showed that EbgA and LacZ diverged from a common ancestor at least 2.2 billion years ago, that they belonged to different subclasses of the family of 14 beta-galactosidases, that the two subclasses differed at 12 of the 15 active site residues, and confirmed that the two previously identified mutations in ebgA are the only ones that can lead to enzyme with sufficient activity on lactose to permit growth. Studies of the catalytic mechanism of Ebg beta-galactosidase have allowed the widely accepted Albery and Knowles model for the evolution of catalysis to be rejected.

Publication Types:

Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 10234816 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Determining the evolutionary potential of a gene.

Hall BG, Malik HS.

Biology Department, University of Rochester, New York 14627. drbh@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

In addition to information for current functions, the sequence of a gene includes potential information for the evolution of new functions. The wild-type ebgA (evolved beta-galactosidase) gene of Escherichia coli encodes a virtually inactive beta-galactosidase, but that gene has the potential to evolve sufficient activity to replace the lacZ gene for growth on the beta-galactoside sugars lactose and lactulose. Experimental evidence, which has suggested that the evolutionary potential of Ebg enzyme is limited o two specific amino acid replacements, is limited to examining the consequences of single base-substitutions. Thirteen beta-galactosidases homologous with the Ebg beta-galactosidase are widely dispersed, being found in gram-negative and gram-positive eubacteria and in a eukaryote. A comparison of Ebg beta-galactosidase with those 13 beta-galactosidases shows that Ebg is part of an ancient clade that diverged from the paralogous lacZ beta-galactosidase over 2 billion years ago. Ebg differs from other members of its clade at only 2 of the 15 active-site residues, and the two mutations required for full Ebg beta-galactosidase activity bring Ebg into conformity with the other members of its clade. We conclude that either these are the only acceptable amino acids at those positions, or all of the single-base-substitution replacements that must arise as intermediates on the way to other acceptable amino acids are so deleterious that they constitute a deep selective valley that has not been traversed in over 2 billion years. The evolutionary potential of Ebg is thus limited to those two replacements.

PMID: 9718732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.

Hall BG.

Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12, does not permit growth on lactose. As part of a study of the evolution of new enzymatic functions, I have selected, from a lacZ deletion strain, a variety of spontaneous mutants that grow on lactose and other beta-galactoside sugars. Single point mutations in the structural gene ebgA alter the enzyme so that it hydrolyzes lactose or lactulose effectively; two mutations in ebgA permit galactosylarabinose hydrolysis, while three mutations are required for lactobionic acid hydrolysis. Wild-type ebg enzyme and 16 functional mutant ebg enzymes were purified and analyzed kinetically to determine how the substrate specificities had changed during the directed evolution of these new functions. The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme.

PMID: 6793063 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Do the evolutionists have a better example of evolution than the apparent eohippus fraud?

Scripter, you're just candy for any creationist who wants to lie to you about what you want to believe. The "fraud" is far more apparent than real.

ME: The existence of God is outside the realm of science, and therefore irrelevant.

G3K: No it is not irrelevant.

Science looks for natural causes. God is supernatural. How many times has this been explained to you? Oh, wait! I forgot you can't count to two.

G3K: And in fact, your statement is an admission that evolution can never be proven -

How does this differ from any other scientific theory? Repeated posting that science never "proves" anything, except in a negative sense, just don't seem to make any impression on you. This is why we keep telling you that a scientific theory must be capable of disproof. You've never appeared to grasp this, either, yet it's essential to an understanding of science. You don't have to believe FR posters on this, by the way. Any scientific website or entry-level science book will tell you the same thing.

G3K: science cannot deny God and so long as you atheists cannot prove that God does not exist you must always deal with the question 'what is evolution or was it God'.

This is too profoundly incoherent for my poor powers of divination. I'll try and take this bit by bit. Science neither denies God nor wants to. Science does not deal with God. God is supernatural, remember? Science deals with the natural. So if this has any meaning whatever, it is nothing more than a false dichotomy.

You keep demanding that religion should somehow control what science does, but you've never answered a question I've asked repeatedly, "Which religion(s) should control science in the United States, Italy, India, and China?"

I object again to the characterization of all who accept the theory of evolution as atheists. I object to the characterization of all posters to this forum who accept the theory of evolution as atheists. You can set yourself up as the arbiter of who or who isn't an atheist or a Christian, or an adherent of some other religion acceptable you'll accept, but you're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone else to pay any attention to you. Especially after the behavior you've displayed on these threads.

"What is evolution or was it God" as a question is right up there with "What color is the font or was the my elbow sneezing at the rumination?"

G3K: However, myself and the anti-evolutionists here are not saying that 'God did it' therefore evolution is false. We are dealing with what science can deal with, with evidence. And guess what, you are losing, losing badly and that is why you are trying to dismiss alternatives with rhetorical nonsense.

Regarding "anti-evolutionists," you are painting with too broad a brush. There are many here who do say "God did it and therefore evolution is false," and are at least honest about it. These are the ones who post bits of the Bible in an attempt to convince others that evolution couldn't have happened.

There are others here who say "God did it, and evolution was the means He chose." Many other posters appear to hold this position. This would also appear to be the Pope's position, although the Pope was careful to distinguish between man and animals. I realize you've already quote-mined the Pope's statement on the matter, but your wishful thinking notwithstanding, the Pope has stated clearly that belief in evolution is not inconsistent with Catholic teaching. It's easy to check what's being taught Catholic schools, by the way.

Then there are those who appear to never admit the most obvious mistakes, can't form a coherent paragraph, frame an argument, or recognize any evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of how the world works. Hint: Who complains that evolutionists are always changing their story? That's another thing science does that you refuse to recognize. It changes theories to fit the facts.

Your assertions regarding science and how it works are meaningless until you've grasped what science is.

Only when they "hit bottom" do these individuals begin to look about, very much like my experience in anthropology as an undergrad.

Yes, I think you're right.

Altho now I'm curious -- what does the word 'evidence' mean to these folks?

From your experience, what did 'evidence' mean to you at that point?

you're just candy for any creationist

I would imagine it comes across as bitter to your worldview.

Gore3000 said evolutionists can never point to a single species which has clearly transformed itself to another more complex one.

Virginia-American responded with: Ever hear of eohippus?

Do you agree? Is eohippus an example that fits gore3000's statement? Do you believe eohippus is the best or one of the best examples of evidence in support of evolution?

How would you objectively determine the point at which macroevolution occurrs?

Consider that question, and the meaning of the words, and you can answer it yourself.

'Micro' v. 'macro' is only 'little' v. 'big'.

At what point do you say that something that has changed a large number of small times has been changed in a big way?

It would depend on the specifics of the changes, in every example from the real world I can think of.

To my knowledge you're the only invididual making that claim.

Interesting.

You didn't realize that non-creationists don't have this 'micro'/'macro' evolution concept at all? That it's all just changes? Not 'big' changes v. 'little' changes?

You don't realize that this is a word game created by the YEC?

Do you agree? Is eohippus an example that fits gore3000's statement? Do you believe eohippus is the best or one of the best examples of evidence in support of evolution?

Are you really confused about what I think? What does the link I gave you in post 1214 tell you about the claim that eohippus is a hyrax?