Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

Watching the backpedaling placemarker.

You and I never discussed the hyrax. In 1203, gore posted that eohippus is just a hyrax. In 1207, you nodded in affable agreement, claiming that you've checked out eohippus and can only conclude (being ever-so-reasonable and all) that it's a fraud.

If your basis for seeming to agree with gore is that you do agree with him, my post 1214 anticipated your position. (And what then is all the hubbub about "We never discussed the hyrax?")

If you disagree with gore, why pretend? I'll dare answer. All creationist disagreements are swept under the rug as the dirtiest of dirty secrets. You don't attack your ally in a Holy War.

What is the basis for 1207 in which you claim a free pass for having refuted eohippus? You've read several articles and we should listen to you? What were these articles and why did you select just the ones you did to form your reasoned opinion?

I've read about 4 or 5 sources on the issue, none of which were AIG or TrueOrigins, plus the Talk.Origins piece many times. I'm busy working some other issues and don't have a whole lot of time for this back and forth stuff, especially when I have to repeat myself. As time allows I'm putting together a piece on the horse.

OK, missed your 1259 in the back-and-forth. Awaiting your equine opus with bated breath.

Ahh yes, the typical Gore3000 tactic of deliberately misrepresenting information. I am left wondering how someone so blatantly dishonest dares to call himself Christian.

Of course they sequenced the DNA, compared the mutants to the wild types and performed the appropriate enzymatic activity assays. The FEMS Micro review article (free on the web) summarizes these studies carried out over the last 20 years on the mutant ebg genes (Table 1, page 2).

In none of the cases do we see a mutation adding additional information.

This is exactly what the study shows. Spontaneous mutations gave rise to those changes within the ebgA gene which were not present in the original population. Spontaneous random mutation changed the information content in a favorable manner – the genetic content (the DNA) changed . The ebgA gene found in the lactose metabolizing bacteria now encodes for an enzyme that can utilize lactose.

We know Gore3000 doesn’t like to read, but for the benefit of everyone else, here is an excerpt from the FEMS review:

How many different genes could evolve to replace the -galactosidase function encoded by lacZ? The answers to several of those questions are now known. Selection for spontaneous lactose utilizing mutants from lacZ ebgR- (constitutive) strains always results in mutations in ebgA [10]; thus within the limits of this experimental system there is only one gene that can evolve to replace lacZ. Among hundreds of independent ebg+ mutants, selection has produced only two classes of ebg+ mutants [10]. Class I mutants grow well on lactose with a first order growth rate constant of 0.4 h-1, while Class II mutants grow more slowly, with a rate constant of 0.2 h-1 on lactose [11]. All Class I mutants have a G to A mutation in ebgA that results in an Asp-92Asn substitution, while all Class II mutants have a G to(T or C) mutation in ebgA that results in a Trp-977Cys substitution [5, 10].

After his rant on how no there were no mutations, Gore3000 clearly contradicts himself in this sentence (referencing the nature of the ebg changes)...

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."

So what? Beneficial mutations are rare. But they do occur. In this system several beneficial mutations were observed in different genes controlling the lactose utilization pathway.

Speciation is not reversible.

Are you sure? Why? Is there some reason to think this?

I've never heard anyone say this.

It doesn't seem right, to me.

Are you sure? Why? Is there some reason to think this?

Varieties can disappear by remelding with the ancestral population. Years ago I saw reports that the Baltimore Oriole population was remelding with the Eastern Oriole. (Whether that particular process continues I have heard nothing further.)

Humans are doing something similar with our "races," the particular word we have for our varieties. We can do this because, like those orioles, we haven't diverged so far that we're incompatible.

Horses and donkeys, on the other hand, can never re-meld, even though there's a limited (and useful to humans) cross-fertility. A horse and a donkey can make mules and jennies but the process tends to dead-end from there. That's a speciation.

Hmmm.

I was hoping to find a way to talk to them, and ask them what 'evidence' meant to them.

Do you think it's at all possible? Any suggestions on how I should approach it?

Varieties can disappear by remelding with the ancestral population.

I'm sorry, I put that poorly.

Is there any reason to think that speciation can't reverse itself, assuming the environment were to 'select' it that way?

I was under the impression that it could all be reversed, assuming the environment selected it that way.

It's very improbable that you would ever regain a lost compatibility. And there's no way for the environment to start selecting for mating with incompatible partners.

It's very improbable that you would ever regain a lost compatibility.

Absolutely.

But the claim was that speciation was irreversible.

I don't believe there's any reason to believe that's true. Altho it is certainly veeeeeery unlikely, since the environment would have to select for it.

But I see no reason to assume it's impossible.

I'm thinking of things like species losing fins, then gaining them again, like whales supposedly did.

Your quote does not prove the expression of the new genes. Notice the word COULD in what you posted. It is you who is being completely dishonest.
How many different genes could evolve to replace the -galactosidase function encoded by lacZ?

The article in no way shows that these genes were mutants and became expressed through evolution. That is an assumption, not a proof. We have discussed this before and I mentioned - and you agreed that just because something is the same in one species as in another does not prove either evolution or ID. Therefore, what this study proves is what I have been saying all along: that evolution is almost impossible, of this 3126 amino acid long gene only two possible mutations would be favorable. Now if you have a calculator tell me how many chances that is 20^3126. Less than two chances out of a 1 with over 40,000 zeros behind it! And you claim that article proves your stupid theory!

But I am sure that the above is not enough proof for an evolutionist, so let's give you some more. Let me show how hard it is to get a single gene to produce a protein:

From: Transcription Machine

Not only do you need a duplicate gene, not only do you have only two chances is a 1 with 40,000 zeros behing it for the proper change, you also need the whole system above to just get the gene to work, and of course you also need the above system to be added to the development cycle of the organism, which is a program that turns one single cell into 100 trillion cells in just the right places, in just the right configuration, with just the right qualities.

As I have been saying all along evolution is bunk. Indeed more than that:

EVOLUTION IS PSEUDO-SCIENCE FOR MORONS

Short of a lightening bolt? No, I don't think it's possible. It took a 2x4 (in the form of those skulls) to get me thinking. Before that, my faith in the supernatural was absolute. I asked for Divine intervention to keep my mind focused on the straight and narrow path, so that all distractions (including evidence) would be mere whispers.

That is the mindset. My dad had the whole church praying that I wouldn't be contaminated by science.

I have seen your later post... I just wanted to respond to this.

If your basis for seeming to agree with gore is that you do agree with him, my post 1214 anticipated your position. (And what then is all the hubbub about "We never discussed the hyrax?")

I may or may not agree with everything in a post and only respond to part of it. In fact my reasons for agreeing with G3K on that issue had absolutely nothing to do with the Hyrax - it's not even on my radar at this time. I had my own reasons for what I said regarding eohippus. Although now that you mention this I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from. You may notice my 1207 didn't mention the hyrax and the part I quoted from G3K didn't either. Obviously things could have been more clear. It's good we can't read each others minds but it would have helped here.

If you disagree with gore, why pretend? I'll dare answer. All creationist disagreements are swept under the rug as the dirtiest of dirty secrets. You don't attack your ally in a Holy War.

Because my experience gives me reason to act as I do. For the most part I work behind the scenes here, with both sides of the debate. Not that I owe anybody here an explanation for why I do what I do. BTW, you really don't know me that well and I can see your preconceived ideas are getting in the way. I'll try to be more clear in future posts, it's just difficult with time constraints, schedules and so many other issues in today's world.

You're position is that the reason for our diverse flora and fauna is that "little" changes have indisputably led to "big" changes.

While believing in the "little" changes, I disagree with your conclusion they have led to the "big" changes.

The evidence cited -- and judgeing by these crevo lists, I'd say exclusively -- is the DNA-less fossil record, which I think is too open to interpretation to be considered proof, and the phylogenic tree. Evolution seems more designed to explain the tree rather than the tree proving evolution.

On the other hand, confidently held tenets of evolution such as Haeckel's drawings have been found to be false.

The creationists creative contribution to the terms is that evolution happens only on an undefined microscale.

Nope, and you know better. In fact I have been posting the following for some six months showing exactly where the demarcation line is and why it is the scientifically accurate demarcation line, not the nonsense that evolutionists call speciation:

Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution. No one disagrees with micro-evolution - the small changes that species make to adapt to their environment. However, the meat of the theory of evolution is not small changes. Indeed, they should not even be called changes at all, they should be called transformations. The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.

Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.

So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus.

Anything 'blurry' about that? You bet it is not. It is very definite unlike the pseudo-scientific definitions of 'speciation' by evolutionists which essentially amount to 'speciation is whatever we like'. Which of course goes along perfectly with the evolutionist definition of evolution itself 'evolution is whatever we like' and that is why evolutionists will never state what the theory of evolution is.

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.

Another Vade brilliant refutation - a link to an article by a nobody in TalkOrigins who will tell any lie for evolution. Well, here are some people that disagree with him, some of the famous evolutionists in the field:

What informed scientists say about the horse series

George Gaylord Simpson, world's foremost evolutionary paleontologist said, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." (George G. Simpson, Life Of The Past, p.119)
Simpson, after stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium ("Eohippus"), which evolutionists assume was the first horse, and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, goes on to say "This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals…The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed." (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, G. G. Simpson ,1944, p 105)
This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertibrate and invertibrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phylia,.. (Tempa and Mode in evolution, G. G. Simpson, 1944, p 107)
"It is evolution that gives rhyme and reason to the story of the horse family as it exists today and as it existed in the past. Our own existence has the same rhyme and reason, and so has the existence of every other living organism. One of the main points of interest in the horse family is that it so clearly demonstrates this tremendously important fact." (Horses, G.G. Simpson, 1961, p. xxxiii)
"When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: 'One's mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited -- incorrectly more often than not -- as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.' This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (The Fossil Record And Evolution: A Current Perspective, B. J. MacFadden Horses, Evol. Biol. ISBN: 22:131-158, 1988, p. 131)
"...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" (Fossil Horses, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL, 1994, p.27 )
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America , have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Dr. David Raup , Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1), 1979, p 25)
"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down-stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." (Colin Patterson , Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, Harper's, p. 60, 1984.
The sequence in the series which presents transitional forms between small, many-toed forms and large, one-toed forms, has absolutely no fossil record evidence. (Moore, John, N., and Harold S. Slusher, Eds., Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, p. 548)
"In the first place it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse. Thus Simpson (1945) states, ‘Matthew [1926] has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primitive that it is not much more definitely equid than tapirid, rhinocerotid, etc., but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.’" ( Kerkut, G. A., Implications of Evolution, New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 149)
"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn (1937, 1943) for the evolution of the Proboscidea, where "in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the Early Eocene or Late Cretaceous' (Romer 1949)." (Kerkut , G. A., Implications of Evolution, New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 149)
"Much of this story [horse evolution] is incorrect …" ( Birdsell, J. B., Human Evolution, Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub. Co., 1975, p. 169)
"Because its complications are usually ignored by biology textbooks, creationists have claimed the horse story is no longer valid. However, the main features of the story have in fact stood the test of time...." ( Futuyma, D.J. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, p 85)
"All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation." ( Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology, p 409)
"The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses." (Phylogeny of the family Equidae, R. L. Evander, 1989, p 125)
Eohippus, presented as the ancestor of horse which has disappeared millions of years ago, resembles extraordinarily to an animal called Hyrax which still lives in Africa today. One of the evolution researchers, Hitchings comments as follows: "Eohippus, supposedly the first horse, doesn’t look in the least like one, and indeed, when first found was not classified as such. It is remarkably like the present-day Hyrax (or daman), both in its skeletal structure and the way of like that it is supposed to have lived… Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct, and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all a-shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush." (The Neck of the Giraffe?, Francis? Hitchings, [Title and first name are not certain])

Now when even eminent evolutionists do not say it is a horse, who you gonna believe?????

I don't believe there's any reason to believe that's true. Altho it is certainly veeeeeery unlikely, since the environment would have to select for it.

The environment can only select for things that make you more likely to pass on your genes. Behaviors that kill your chances to reproduce are selected out. Mating with animals that aren't related enough to give you fertile offspring falls into the latter category.

Lurking ...

Is there any reason to think that speciation can't reverse itself, assuming the environment were to 'select' it that way?

I was under the impression that it could all be reversed, assuming the environment selected it that way.

An excellent point! How come when the environment changes back, the species do not change back too???? After all, according to evolutionists, it is the environment that forces species to change.

After all according to evolutionists, a few mutations here and there and voila! as if by magic you have a new species, new traits, new everything. If random mutations can do that, they can just as easily reverse it. But of course we know that that does not happen. We do not see that occurring do we?

Also check out Post# 1271 to see why not only evolution cannot happen, but why such a reversal would also be impossible.

While believing in the "little" changes, I disagree with your conclusion they have led to the "big" changes.

As the man said, don't you agree that a journey of a thousand miles (macro-movement) is comprised of many, many small (micro-movement) steps?

I'd say you observe this behavior in systems around you all the time. Do you really doubt that this is logical in this instance?